Stephen Kinnock
MP for Aberafan Maesteg · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her.”
“Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon.”
“I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,341 lines we hold for Stephen Kinnock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 66 of 107.
“I do not believe that it is at all appropriate for such sweeping, ill-defined powers to be conferred on the present or any other Secretary of State. Although amendments 99 and 100 are probing amendments that give us the opportunity to seek answers from the Minister on these extraordinary provisions, amendment 98 is intended quite simply to remove the powers from the Bill.”
“The point the Opposition are trying to make is simply that if we are going to allow businesses of any kind to operate in the UK, we should expect them to abide by our laws. If we start letting them off the hook, for reasons that Ministers have entirely failed to make clear, we are complicit in their actions. In short, the proposed new section 1098I would have us trust in the infinite wisdom of the Secretary of State to allow corporate service providers to operate outside the law, on the basis that those powers would be used only in cases where the relevant overseas jurisdiction has a regulatory framework with “similar objectives” to the UK’s own rules. I frankly do not trust the wisdom of the Secretary of State to use those powers for good.”
“It had the somewhat provocative title of “Evading Sanctions: A How-To Guide For Russian Billionaires”. The piece documented the use of opaque offshore corporate structures to launder literally billions-worth of assets held by Russian oligarchs in the last few months and years. What is most troubling about the account is that most of the jurisdictions that it specifically mentions as hotbeds of money laundering and sanctions evasion are UK-linked territories. It will surprise nobody that the list includes the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands—in other words, the usual suspects. I do not wish to dwell too long on the overseas territories, because I am sure there will be further discussions in the Committee when we come to debate later sections of the Bill.”
“I say that because, if enacted as drafted, the clauses would appear to hand the Secretary of State a blanket power to disapply the money laundering regulations to foreign agents, on no one’s authority but his or her own. We need not look too far for examples of how profoundly damaging that could be to our own laws, given how significant the divergences often are between anti-money laundering regimes in countries such as the UK, and those in overseas jurisdictions better known for their corporate secrecy than anything else. In fact, we need look no further than the UK’s own overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Any Member who is either unaware of or in denial about the scale of the problem would be well advised to read an enlightening, although also alarming, article published by Forbes on 9 March 2022.”
“Once again, I find myself somewhat baffled by what the Government are trying to get into the Bill. The provisions set out under clause 63 in proposed new section 1098I of the Companies Act 2006 would enable the Secretary of State to allow foreign corporate service providers to operate in the UK, outside the scope of the UK’s money laundering regulations. There has been such extensive coverage in recent years of the risks that that would entail that I am really quite amazed that this needs to be reiterated yet again, but, in a nutshell, any UK laws attempting to regulate the activities of company formation agents, some of which have been responsible for the most flagrant examples of money laundering and sanctions evasion according to recent reports, could well be rendered essentially meaningless by these few clauses.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. As with the previous debate, I am not particularly happy with the position, and we will look for opportunities to return to the issue during the further passage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 64 General exemptions from identity verification: supplementary Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“We have no further comments to add on clause 64. Question put and agreed to. Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Scott Mann.)”
“The current system is simply not fit for purpose, and at this time of crisis we risk losing newly qualified GPs because of unnecessary red tape. The Conservatives have broken promise after promise on GPs. Their 2019 manifesto promised to deliver 6,000 more GPs by 2024-25. The former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), admitted that the Government are not on track to deliver that. In contrast, the next Labour Government will put patients first, ensuring that they are able to get a face-to-face appointment when they want one, bringing back the family doctor to deliver continuity of care and implementing our workforce plans. The current Government are out of ideas, and we need practical solutions.”
“The plans will not only provide good jobs for British workers and fill shortages in our NHS, but prevent us from having to do dirty deals, as mentioned earlier, with some of the poorest countries in the world—those on the WHO red list—and from recruiting medical professionals from impoverished communities that desperately need that medical knowledge locally. That is exactly what the British Government have done recently with Nepal. In the short term, Labour has consistently pushed for a fix to punitive doctors’ pension rules. The fix would do away with the cap above which NHS workers incur additional tax burdens. That would support short-term recruitment and prevent the exodus of workers. The Government are yet to deliver on that. The Labour party is committed to making the points-based system work, and to our NHS workforce plan.”
“As part of that, we will review the length of work visas, processing times and the existing path to citizenship to ensure that they are all working for our economy and for the public. Labour already has a long-term workforce plan for the NHS. That involves doubling the number of medical school places, which in turn will deliver more home-grown GPs. At the heart of the plan is the doubling of medical school places—an increase of 7,500—which means we will double the number of doctors trained in a year. Our shadow Health Secretary will also produce long-term workforce plans for the NHS for the next five, 10 and 15 years, which will ensure that we always have the NHS staff we need to get patients treated on time.”
“The Royal College of General Practitioners warns that the cumulative effect of visa difficulties on IMGs is that some are “feeling forced to take roles elsewhere in the NHS and others considering leaving the NHS, and in some cases the UK, altogether.” The Government have so far been utterly intransigent on the issue of IMGs, and on tweaking the visa system to remove the red tape. Labour would look closely at the issue as part of our wider improvements to the points-based system. Those improvements would involve the Government working hand in hand with employers, trade unions and other key stakeholders to ensure that we have a properly planned, sector-by-sector approach, with a proper strategy that works for businesses, workers, the public sector, customers and patients alike.”
“The second difficulty is that international GPs must find employment with a GP practice with a visa sponsor licence before their existing visa expires in order to be eligible for a visa that allows them to stay and work as a GP after their training, and ultimately apply for permission to stay permanently. However, practical and bureaucratic obstacles can make that extremely difficult, because GP practices may struggle with the costs and bureaucracy associated with obtaining a licence to sponsor a foreign worker.”
“A survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners found that around 30% of all IMG trainees consider not working as an NHS GP because of all the difficulties and red tape with the visa process. The first of those difficulties is that IMG GPs are not eligible to apply for permission to stay permanently until two years after completing their training. GP training takes three years to complete, and it is only after five years that IMGs can apply for indefinite leave to remain, in line with wider UK visa rules. That problem is unique to general practice: other medical specialty training takes a minimum of five years to complete.”
“Successive Conservative Governments have already cut 4,700 GPs over the last decade, meaning that patients are finding it next to impossible to get an appointment. There is a chronic lack of doctors, nurses and healthcare staff in the NHS. Staff shortages are reaching dangerous levels, when the need for NHS treatment is incredibly high, with huge backlogs and millions of people forced to wait for treatment. Patients are finding it impossible to get a GP appointment in many cases, and GPs are leaving the health service at an alarming rate. Last year, one in six people who tried to speak to a nurse or GP were unable to get an appointment at all. The hurdles placed in front of international medical graduates are a barrier to our NHS filling vacancies and providing the medical care that the British public deserve.”
“Indeed, we cannot have a situation in the NHS where we are short of doctors, all because our immigration system puts up red tape and barriers that prevent, or at least severely discourage and disincentivise, doctors who have come to the UK from overseas to do their three years of general practitioner training from staying on to fill critical vacancies in the job market. That is utterly counterproductive, not least because 47% of new trainees in England in 2020-21 were international medical graduates. Labour’s shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has been clear that it is madness for the NHS to lose GPs whom the British taxpayer has paid to train.”
“Our long-term ambition is to make sure that every employer across the private and public sectors is recruiting and training more home-grown talent to fill vacancies before looking overseas, but we recognise that simply turning off the tap of labour from other countries without having the appropriate workforce structures, plans, training, skills and productivity strategies in place, our private sector and our public services will deteriorate, our businesses will struggle to meet the Labour party’s ambitions to make, buy and sell more in Britain, and we potentially risk jobs disappearing overseas. We cannot have a situation like the one we have had in the farming sector over the past year, where 30,000 pigs were slaughtered and £60 million-worth of crops were burned.”
“In a nutshell, we support the points-based immigration system for migrant workers; it was of course the Labour Government in 2008 that introduced that system for immigration from outside the European Union. We are clear that there will be no return to the European Union’s freedom of movement. We want to build on and improve the points-based system currently in place. It is a very blunt, one-dimensional instrument that could be significantly improved.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for securing this important debate. His speech was an excellent example of a constructive critique of where his own party is on the issue, and he put forward some practical and thoughtful ideas. I hope the Minister has taken note. I suspect there is more chance he will take note of the hon. Member’s comments than he will of mine, but we never know. This debate is a great example of the cross-party discussion that we can have in this place. Let me start by setting out the Labour party’s position on work-based migration in Britain, as it is important to set the context before drilling down into the specifics of the issue we are discussing today.”
“The key piece of our plan is to cancel non-dom status, which is estimated to generate approximately £3.2 billion for the Exchequer, and to use that money to invest in more GPs, doctors and nurses—indeed, doubling the numbers. We can have the best plans and legislation in the world, but we need the resources to deliver them. That is how we will pay for our plans and generate the kind of care that we need for our public. It is time for that Labour Government, so that we can clear the backlogs holding our country back, which we see right across Government, and get Britain’s public services back on track.”
“I thank the Minister for setting out that clear position, but does he agree that the nature of that kind of commitment—the three years, and the type of work that somebody studying to be a general practitioner is looking into and wants to do—is in itself a demonstration of something extra in terms of commitment to the United Kingdom? It is not as if they are coming here to work for a foreign company. Should such people not be given some kind of exceptional treatment because of the nature of the work? That is an open question.”
“The Minister rightly mentions value for money. The British taxpayer pays for the training of international medical graduates in this country. Will the Government consider doing a value-for-money assessment of what the British taxpayer pays for people who train to be GPs but end up leaving our system all together because of all the visa issues? Is that not a waste of taxpayers’ money?”
“I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 14, page 8, line 11, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”. This amendment, and Amendments 88 to 93 would require that, when a company is ordered to change its name under the provisions of this Bill (including in cases where the name is considered misleading or it may facilitate criminal activity) the company must comply with the order within 28 days. This requirement would replace the Bill’s provision to provide the company with a potentially unlimited period of time to comply with the order.”
“We will work together on the Bill, but I represent the shadow Home Affairs team, looking at the issues through the lens of security, which is so important to our country and is very much the other side of the coin from the economic resilience issue that we are also exploring. I will speak to clauses 14 to 28 and the amendments to them. Economic crime has a devastating impact on an individual level for our constituents and businesses, and at a national level for our national security and economic resilience.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I add to the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, to his place. Over the past few weeks and months, it has been a bit difficult to keep track of who is going where and of the blizzard of appointments. His appointment in particular stood out as a very wise decision by the Prime Minister. We very much look forward to working with the Minister on the Bill and on other issues. I must add that I am looking forward to working with my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston.”
“Companies that fail to comply with such an order within a reasonable period of time, and a 28-day limit seems reasonable to us, should also be penalised if they cannot provide a good reason for any delay or refusal to comply. I am happy to pause here if there is anything that the Minister would like to clarify.”
“Although that aim is laudable, there appears to be a disconnect between the seriousness of the offences that the Government are seeking to prevent, and the lengthy periods of time that Ministers are prepared to allow for a company to comply with an order to change its name. Given that such an order will generally be made only when a Minister has identified a clear risk of harm in relation to a company’s name—including a risk of fraudulent or other serious criminal activity—it is hard to understand why a company would then be given potentially limitless timeframes to comply with that order. The Opposition believe there should be, at the very least, a time limit on orders to change a name believed to be intended to deceive the public of the company’s true purpose.”
“In a moment, I will pause to allow the Minister to clarify whether that provision is deliberate, because it appears to be both rather confusing and rather too generous. Surely, it should say that the company must comply with the order within 28 days. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve—as opposed to “at least” 28 days, it must be within 28 days. The Bill includes lengthy provisions on company names, and sets out how and for what reason a company may be required to change its registered name. The aim of those provisions is to enable companies’ names to be prohibited in cases where they may be intended to facilitate dishonesty, deception or another criminal offence.”
“That problem is the underfunding, lack of regulation and lack of teeth at the heart of Companies House. Clauses 9 to 22 cover legislation on changes to company names. I have moved amendment 87 and tabled amendments 72, 88 to 90, and 73 to clause 14, as well as amendment 91 to clause 17 and amendment 92 to clause 18. We are surprised that the Bill states that when a company is directed to change its name under the Companies Act 2006, including in cases where the name is considered misleading or might facilitate criminal activity, that company must comply with the direction in “at least 28 days”. That requirement would replace the provision to provide the company with a potentially unlimited period of time to comply with the order.”
“Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said on Second Reading: “Ours is a country that has long prided itself on the rule of law and on strong economic institutions, which is what traditionally made it a good place in which to invest, but that is being undermined by economic crime”. —[ Official Report , 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 291.] It is also being undermined by the illicit money flowing through what many call “Londongrad”. As much as that brings shame, it should also bring pride that we are coming together as parliamentarians to debate and scrutinise this important Bill. We support the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. With 250 pages, a huge amount of detail needs extensive discussion. Part 1 is critical, because it aims to get to the crux of one of the major barriers to tackling economic crime.”
“Up to and including clause 27, finishing, and then moving on to clause 28. Thank you for that clarification, Ms Bardell. The National Crime Agency estimates that £100 billion of dirty money flows through the UK every year and that fraud is causing £190 billion of damage to our economy. According to PwC, 64% of businesses have experienced fraud, corruption, or other economic or financial crime within the past two years, which is up from 50% only four years ago. The Labour party believes in stronger action to defend our national interest, our economy and our national security from the organised criminals, fraudsters, corrupt oligarchs and kleptocrats. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. As he pointed out, he had to read the provision several times in order to be clear on the drafting. Clause 14 (5)(3) says: “The period must be a period of at least 28 days”. Our intention is to make it clear that it has to happen within 28 days. There is a clear difference between “at least” and “within”. “At least” gives the impression that a company could have an unlimited period of time beyond those 28 days, whereas if we clearly state that it must happen within 28 days, then there is no room for doubt whatsoever. Would the Minister like to come back to me on that?”
“Maybe the Minister and I are just not seeing it through the same lens. I agree that there should be a fixed period, but I think it should be clearly defined that the fixed period must be a maximum of 28 days. Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted makes that clear?”
“You are absolutely right to keep us in line, Ms Bardell. We need to ensure we can operationalise the Bill in the clearest and most succinct way that leaves absolutely no room for doubt. The Bill is designed to regulate a sector of the economy that is like water; if it can find cracks to slip through, it will find them. We are trying to close those loopholes.”
“Another case flagged by the Financial Conduct Authority in January involved similar attempts by scammers to link themselves with the financial institution Wells Fargo. Clause 15 is a welcome recognition of those issues and should go some way toward addressing them. However, many legitimate companies that raise objections via the Company Names Tribunal are currently facing delays of three months or more before they can get a decision. I wonder whether the Minister could explain what steps the Government will take to help speed up the Company Names Tribunal process and ensure that fraudulent company names are corrected as quickly as possible.”
“Responses to the consultation reflected widespread concern about the impact company names that are clearly deliberately misleading might have on legitimate businesses in cases where rogue companies try to suggest they have a connection to a well-known business and thus benefit from wider public recognition of, and perhaps even loyalty to, an established brand. Such appropriation of company names is now understood as a means of scamming would-be investors out of their money. Earlier this year, for example, there were high-profile reports of a scam involving a company calling itself Diageo Partners Ltd. It attempted to solicit an investment by presenting itself as an arm of the well-known drinks company of that name.”
“My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I hope the Minister will reflect on that. Moving on to clauses 15 to 22, we are content with clause 15, which would allow for objections based on the company name being misleading outside the UK and for the shareholders and directors of said company to be joined as respondents or defenders in the claim. In their February 2022 White Paper, the Government explained the rationale for expanding the grounds for objections to be made to a company’s name. It was broadly accepted that the current restrictions, for instance on names that imply a link to the UK Government, were too narrowly drawn.”
“Continuing to use a trading name in such circumstances amounts to a criminal offence by the company and every responsible officer. Clause 26 states that where a company has been ordered to change its name, it is a criminal offence for an officer or shareholder of that company, with some exceptions, to use that company’s name as the business name for another company. We recognise the sound reasoning behind each of those clauses.”
“While the previous clauses refer to company names, clauses 23 to 27 refer to a company’s trading name or business name, which can be different from the company name registered with Companies House. Business or trading names do not need to be registered with Companies House, but they need to adhere to the general restrictions listed in part 41 of the Companies Act 2006. Clauses 23, 24 and 27 make similar changes to trading names as clauses 10, 16 and 22 in respect of company names. We have no objections there, although my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston might wish to speak to her amendment to clause 27 shortly. Clause 25 prohibits a company from using a business or trading name that is the same as a company name that it has been ordered to change.”
“Failure to comply would be a criminal offence by the company and all responsible officers. The provisions in clause 20 would empower the registrar forcibly to change the name of the company if the company does not do so. That all sounds eminently sensible and we support the measures. We support clause 21, which makes consequential amendments to the new powers to change a company name under the Bill, for example, because it contains computer code. That requires the registrar to replace the old name with the new one on the register. We also support clause 22, which provides for the Secretary of State to allow company names that are otherwise prohibited where considered necessary for national security or to prevent or detect serious crime.”
“Clearly, scammers and fraudsters have no respect for national borders and it is right that a UK company that is causing or attempting to cause harm in another country should be subject to enforcement actions requiring it to stop. The wording used in clause 16 and elsewhere, referring to actions that pose a risk of harm to the public, is exceptionally broad. Will the Minister expand on how that definition might be given greater clarity and, indeed, clearer definition? Will he provide some practical examples of how those powers might be used? I look forward to his insights. Clause 18 introduces a procedure that allows the Secretary of State to direct a company to change its name where the name breaches the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, including as amended by the Bill.”
“Excellent. We support clause 16, which gives extra powers to the Secretary of State to direct a company to change its name only if he or she deems it to be as little as “a risk of harm” and makes it clear that harm can apply outside the UK. However, in clauses 15 and 16, the Bill seeks to broaden the scope of misleading or otherwise harmful effect, which can be used as grounds to require a change of name. The provisions cover the potential for a misleading company name to cause harm in any part of the world, not just in the UK, and that is surely welcome recognition of the reality of today’s landscape of online fraud.”
“The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The issue with clause 16 is the term “pose a risk of harm to the public”, which seems to be very broad. Can he expand on how that risk might be more clearly defined? Can he give a practical example of how the proposed powers might be used?”
“Briefly on clause 17, I would just like to mark the card because, again, there is an issue with the use of the phrase: “The period must be a period of at least 28 days” in proposed new section 76A(3) of the Companies Act. I suggest that that phrase should be replaced with “This period must be a period of no more than 28 days, beginning with the date of direction”, because I think it would be so much clearer and tighter.”
“That would give the right balance between the need for a basic, tightly defined standard and still having the ability for the Secretary of State to extend the period where required.”
“We accept that there are certain cases where further direction is required to extend the period; there may well be extenuating circumstances, and we certainly do not want to create a straitjacket for businesses—we take that point. However, proposed new subsection (4) does precisely that. That is why we should lay out in proposed new subsection (3) that the basic principle is “no more than” 28 days. We have no desire to change the provisions of proposed new subsection (4)—with extenuating circumstances, the Secretary of State should be able to extend the period. We would be more than happy with that change. It only requires the insertion of “no more than” in proposed new subsection (3), and no change to proposed new subsection (4).”
“I thank the Minister for coming back in such detail on our points. We certainly look forward to studying new clause 34. We have not really had an opportunity to look at it yet, but it is great to see that the Minister and his team have taken our amendments on board and come up with something that will hopefully enable us to find common ground. I want to make two additional points. The first goes back over the ground of “at least” versus “within” debate. I spoke earlier about proposed new section 76A(3), on page 10, as introduced by clause 17(4), which says that the period must be a period of “at least” 28 days; our amendment suggests that it should be “no more than” 28 days. The Minister said that making that change would give no leeway to the Secretary of State to be able to override in certain cases.”
“I thank the Minister for that response. My second point is on clause 15, which considers changing names. As we have said, the clause is a welcome recognition of the issues around name changes and companies using names for fraudulent purposes—trying to give themselves connections to well-known brands and so on. Many legitimate companies that raise objections via the company names tribunal are facing delays of three months or more before they get a decision. I asked whether the Minister could assure us that the Government are alive to the issue. What steps might they be taking to speed that process up?”
“In the light of the fact that new clause 34 has been tabled, which we have not yet had the opportunity to study, we will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .”
“I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 28, page 17, line 14, at end insert— “(2A) An address is not an ‘appropriate address’ if— (a) it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out; (b) the registrar, upon inspection, has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use the address; or (c) it is a PO Box address. (2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision— (a) for exceptions to subsection (2A) above; and (b) for the registrar to exercise discretion to disapply subsection (2A) in exceptional cases.” This amendment seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an “appropriate address” for a company’s registration.”
“The Opposition welcome that approach and believe that it could and should be applied more broadly. Therefore, amendment 86 proposes that the address requirement for all companies should be brought closer in line with those of limited partnerships under part 2, as proposed by the Government. The amendments are all designed with our shared aims and values at heart. I hope that the Minister will take time to reflect and consider their worth.”