Kevin Hollinrake
MP for Thirsk and Malton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq. One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is.”
“The UK economy went through many challenges, of course, some of them caused by Brexit; the reality is that a change like that was bound to have a short-term effect—but only a short-term effect. The country grew faster than Germany and France during that period of time.”
“As I said before, governing is not easy; we had many challenges ourselves, and we did not get everything right, but what we did during that difficult period of time—those 14 years—was get 1.2 million more people employed in our economy. Unemployment was halved during our time in office.”
“Of course, many Government Members supported his leadership challenge. We are here now, looking forward to a general election coming down the track. We are ready for a general election when the Government are, because, unlike them, we have a strong leader—against their weak leader.”
“I was, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition.”
“Members on the Government side of the House also feel betrayed and angry with their own leadership, for marching them up to the top of the hill and marching them back down again on many of these issues, but they do not feel as betrayed as the businesspeople in this country in particular.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,516 lines we hold for Kevin Hollinrake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 62 of 71.
“Amendment 97 in clause 119, page 105, line 36, leave out subsection (3). —(Kevin Hollinrake). This amendment is consequential on NC30. Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 121 The register of limited partnerships Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“(3B) If a limited partnership is dissolved at a time when the partnership does not have a general partner who is— (a) solvent, and (b) not disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation, the limited partners at that time who are solvent must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the partnership’s affairs are wound up by a person who is not a limited partner at that time. (3BA) For enforcement of the duties under subsections (3A) and (3B) see section 25B.” (f) omit subsection (3C).’ This amendment means that any solvent general partners who are not disqualified must wind up a dissolved limited partnership or take reasonable steps to ensure it is wound up. If there are no such general partners, the solvent limited partners must take reasonable steps to ensure it is wound up.”
“Amendments made: 96, in clause 119, page 105, line 11, leave out paragraphs (e) to (g) and insert— ‘(e) for subsections (3A) and (3B) substitute— “(3A) If a limited partnership is dissolved at a time when the partnership has at least one general partner who is— (a) solvent, and (b) not disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation, the general partners at that time who are solvent and are not so disqualified must either wind up the partnership’s affairs or take all reasonable steps to ensure that its affairs are wound up by a person who is not a partner at that time.”
“It might be helpful if the hon. Lady shared with me Professor Berry’s written comments, so I can look at it in more detail. Clearly, if a general partner is a legal entity, there is a named individual behind that. We have discussed that at length before. With that information, I will write back to her to clarify those points. Amendment 95 agreed to.”
“This is a simple clause that removes outdated requirements for the registrar to file statements made by limited partnerships and issue certificates of registration for the statements filed. It brings those into line with the more modern approach for the companies register. The clause introduces a definition of the register of limited partnerships, making clear that it is part of the records the registrar holds under section 1080 of the Companies Act 2006.”
“I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 122, page 107, line 34, leave out “available for public inspection” and insert “the following material available for public inspection, so far as it forms part of the register of limited partnerships”. This amendment spells out that the relevant material is only to be made unavailable for public inspection if it forms part of the register of limited partnerships.”
“Clause 122 will prevent personal or confidential information, such as a partner’s residential address and date of birth or a limited partnership’s email address, from being disclosed to the public. That aligns the position of limited partnerships with that of companies as set out in the part 1 clauses that we have already debated.”
“Amendment 40, in clause 122, page 109, line 7, at end insert— “(c) section 22(5) of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (extent of obligation to retain material not available for public inspection).”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on NC17. Clause 122, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 124 Disclosure of information about partners Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“This amendment would make statements relating to identity verification of registered officers unavailable for public inspection. Amendment 38, in clause 122, page 108, line 7, at end insert— “(ca) any statement delivered to the registrar by virtue of section 1067A(3) or (4) of the Companies Act 2006 (delivery of documents: identity verification and authorised corporate service providers);”. This amendment would make statements required to be made when documents are delivered unavailable for public inspection. The statements either relate to identity verification or to an individual being an authorised corporate service provider or employee of an authorised corporate service provider. Amendment 39, in clause 122, page 109, line 4, leave out “and”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 40.”
“Amendments made: 35, in clause 122, page 107, line 34, at end insert— “(za) any application or other document delivered to the registrar under section 8PA, 8G or 8V (changes of addresses by registrar) other than an order or direction of the court;”. This amendment would mean the documents mentioned in it are unavailable for public inspection. Amendment 36, in clause 122, page 107, leave out lines 35 to 37. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30. Amendment 37, in clause 122, page 108, line 4, at end insert— “(ba) so much of any statement delivered to the registrar as is required to contain the information mentioned in any of the following provisions (which relate to identity verification)— section 8A(1C)(b) or (1F)(c)(ii); section 8L(3)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii); section 8Q(4)(b) or (7)(c)(ii);”.”
“As the hon. Lady sets out, the reason for some information not being made public is security—to prevent ID theft, for example. Throughout the Bill, we are giving the registrar powers to share information wherever necessary, particularly if it relates to tackling economic crime. Nothing in the Bill would prevent any information, public or private, from being shared with law enforcement agencies. That is quite clear; the Bill facilitates that. On authorised corporate service providers, the measure relates to statements and not things such as ID verification. This is where it may be considered that a statement is not suitable for sharing with the general public, which we have discussed in previous debates. Amendment 34 agreed to.”
“This is another simple clause, which ensures that personal information is used only for its intended purpose and prevents personal information from being exposed to abuse. The clause prevents the registrar from disclosing personal information about partners unless, in a few limited circumstances, it is necessary to do so. In all cases, information will remain available to law enforcement.”
“Yes, it can. Question put and agreed to. Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 125 Registrar’s power to confirm dissolution of limited partnership”
“Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon, through amendment 165, to increase transparency and bring clarity to the register concerning limited partnerships that are dissolved. The Bill already requires the registrar to issue the notice of dissolution in the Gazette , which is a matter of public record and can be accessed by the public indefinitely. That information will also be added to a limited partnership’s record, with the information being made available to the public for 20 years, either on the register or through the public records office. The information would therefore already be in the public domain. However, I would like to explore with Companies House the feasibility and costs associated with also publishing that information on its website, as the hon. Members have suggested. I will return to them on that point.”
“The registrar, despite being certain that the limited partnership was dissolved, would be forced to go through the warning notice and representation-seeking process to confirm that. It would unnecessarily take longer for the registrar to deregister a limited partnership that she was certain had been dissolved. Furthermore, the process of issuing a dissolution notice attracts a cost. Were the registrar to issue a warning notice, wait for representations and then issue a dissolution notice each and every time she had reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership had dissolved, the cost may be significant. The registrar should therefore be given flexibility to use her judgment to determine whether to begin the dissolution notice process on a case-by-case basis. I support the intentions of the hon.”
“The quick answer to the hon. Gentleman’s comment is that we believe in people using their judgment. The registrar, who we believe to be a competent person, should use her judgment in these cases. It may not always be proportionate in the circumstances to issue a notice of dissolution. However, I am grateful for the amendments. The Bill allows the registrar to remove a limited partnership from the index of names without going through the dissolution notice process if she is absolutely certain that the partnership was dissolved, resulting in its deregistration. Amendments 163 and 164 would compel the registrar to publish a notice warning of dissolution, and then a notice confirming dissolution within two months if she reasonably believes that a limited partnership is dissolved.”
“That avoids both the potentially protracted process of dissolving and winding up the limited partnership before it becomes a different entity, and the associated administrative burden that would fall upon the registrar.”
“Clause 126 will, within a six-month period following commencement of the Act, allow the registrar to publish a notice in the Gazette that limited partnerships are dissolved without having to follow the warning notice and representation-gathering process. This will immediately dissolve those limited partnerships that failed to comply in the six-month transitional period with the requirement to supply the registrar with information required under the Bill. Clause 127 allows limited partnerships that are not dissolved to deregister and, should the partners want to, continue as general partnerships without the need to wind up the affairs of the firm. All partners in the limited partnership must agree to the deregistration process.”
“Within a period of six years from dissolution, a dissolved limited partnership’s former general partner may apply to the registrar for the partnership to be revived if they bring the limited partnership’s information up to date and pay any fines or penalties that are owed. The Secretary of State, any partner or any person with an interest in the limited partnership may also apply to the court for the limited partnership to be revived. We expect that confirmation of dissolution power to dramatically reduce the number of limited partnerships that are currently registered. A more accurate and up-to-date register will give clarity to the public and law enforcement about the number of active limited partnerships.”
“Clause 125 will allow the registrar to confirm that a limited partnership is dissolved where she has reasonable cause to believe that it is, and to remove the name of the dissolved firm from the index of limited partnerships that she maintains. It is important that limited partnerships and interested parties are given sufficient notice of the potential dissolution, allowing them to make representations to the registrar if they object. The registrar will therefore be required to publish a notice of her intention to dissolve the limited partnership in the Gazette and to notify the limited partnership of her intention. After a period of not less than two months, the registrar may publish a second notice in the Gazette , which will effectively dissolve the limited partnership, if it is not dissolved already, and let it be deregistered.”
“On the hon. Lady’s point of clarification, it is after the six-month period. On the hon. Lady’s latter point, about the dissolution of a company, will she clarify what question she wants me to address?”
“That is a fair point. Off the top of my head, I would say that that might be a red flag and the registrar would look in more detail into the parties related to the deregistration, but I will write to the hon. Lady to provide further detail on that point. Question put and agreed to. Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 126 and 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 128 Delivery of documents relating to limited partnerships”
“The amendment would require individuals to submit documents if their identity was verified, but it would remove the requirement for individuals to be relevant persons under the money laundering regulations. I do not think that would be the right approach. It would mean that they would not, for example, have the obligation to conduct due diligence checks on those on whose behalf they were acting or to adhere to record-keeping requirements, and they would not be supervised for anti-money laundering purposes. Clause 128 will serve not just to better support supervision but as a prompt for better supervision, so I invite the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston to withdraw the amendment.”
“We know that, and we recognise those comments from UK Finance. That is why the Treasury is undertaking the consultation on how we can improve the supervision of corporate service providers, which certainly needs to be done. As I have said many times, corporate service providers can be major accountants that are bona fide organisations; the hon. Lady refers to the minority of corporate service providers that we do need to better regulate and supervise. That body of work is currently being undertaken. We think the approach of requiring ACSPs to provide the documentation, which is more restrictive than the filing options for limited companies, is appropriate given both the relatively low numbers of limited partnerships created each year and the fact that they are used chiefly by the investment sector, which routinely uses agents.”
“I am happy to provide that clarification. I thank the right hon. Member for Barking, who is not present today, for her amendment. The measures in part 2 are intended to tackle the role of limited partnerships in global money laundering schemes. Clause 128 ensures that key documents pertaining to limited partnerships can be submitted only by an authorised corporate service provider. The key is that those providers must be registered with the registrar and supervised for anti-money laundering purposes. Doing so will give the registrar a clear audit trail of who has been setting up and providing corporate services to limited partnerships, and enable that audit trail to be shared with AML supervisors. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston is absolutely right to say that there are question marks over corporate service providers.”
“Just to clarify, my argument was not that smaller numbers of limited partnerships are being set up and therefore the risk is less. It is quite the opposite: we know that limited partnerships have been involved in economic crime so we think the risk is greater. That is why we want to put in an extra layer of scrutiny. We believe that introducing somebody who is supervised under the AML regulations provides that extra level of scrutiny and an extra level of check and balance in the process. That is our basic argument.”
“Clause 128 is another simple clause. It ensures that key documents pertaining to limited partnerships can be submitted only by an authorised corporate service provider. I have already set out why clause 128 is so important in making limited partnerships and their partners subject to a greater level of scrutiny than they are currently exposed to.”
“We have debated the same issue at length on a number of occasions. We feel they are proportionate powers to hand the Secretary of State and will be used very rarely. Question put and agreed to. Clause 128, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 129 General false statement offences Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“Clause 129 simply introduces two false statement offences—basic and aggravated— into the Limited Partnerships Act. The offences mirror those in the Companies Act and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The Committee has supported this approach when debating other clauses.”
“Clause 130 specifies how documents may be served at the registered office for the purposes of the Limited Partnerships Act. The clause is necessary to ensure that the registrar or another body can serve documents to a limited partnership’s registered address with assurances that they will be received. It is in line with the principles we discussed in part 1 of the Bill.”
“I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 131, page 120, line 18, leave out “any Act, whenever passed or made” and insert “either of the following, whenever passed or made— (a) an Act; (b) Northern Ireland legislation.” This would allow for consequential amendments to be made to Northern Ireland legislation if the power inserted by clause 131 of the Bill is exercised to apply company law to limited partnerships, for example amendments to the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.”
“Clause 133 provides that regulation-making powers can also make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional and saving provisions. It sets out definitions for negative and affirmative procedures. I am happy to let Opposition Members speak to their amendment before I respond.”
“Turning to clause 132, there is some ambiguity as to whether a limited partnership that is registered in Scotland, or one that is in business in Scotland but registered elsewhere in the UK, has legal personality distinct from its partners. That has significant consequences as the partnerships that are legal persons distinct from their partners can, for example, enter into contracts and own property in their own right. The clause clarifies that only those limited partnerships that have been registered by the registrar for Scotland are legal persons distinct from their partners. That puts beyond doubt the fact that limited partnerships that have their principal base of business in Scotland but are not registered in Scotland are not legal persons in their own right—the place of registration is determinative.”
“To set the context, clause 131 permits the application of company law to limited partnerships where that provision of company law is similar to, or corresponds to, limited partnership law. That will ensure that when company law is amended over time, the corresponding limited partnership law can be amended alongside it, making it easier to keep company law and limited partnership law aligned. To ensure the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, the regulation-making power in the clause will be subject to the procedure applied to the company law that it will adapt. Government amendment 42 amends clause 131 so that the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 can be updated to apply to limited partnerships, so that we can disqualify general partners for their actions within a limited partnership.”
“I have asked my officials to consider which of the measures in part XIV of the 1985 Act there might be a case for refashioning to bolster the authorities’ ability to investigate limited partnerships and those concerned in their management.”
“In these cases, it makes sense to have powers to investigate the conduct of the people running them to ensure that they cannot hide behind the independent legal personality of the entity itself. In contrast, where a limited partnership has no separate legal personality, the conduct of its partners is unshielded. They can already be investigated for fraudulent and other unlawful conduct under existing criminal law and prosecuted accordingly. Where a partner in a limited partnership is itself a company, the provisions of part XIV would already apply to them. It is therefore unnecessary to extend the investigations regime under part XIV in its entirety to limited partnerships, as this amendment would. Nevertheless, I welcome and am happy to consider suggestions that help us to root out wrongdoers and deal with them appropriately.”
“On new clause 48, it is of course right that Companies House should have the necessary powers to investigate wrongdoing by limited partnerships. I am fully signed up to improving transparency and scrutiny, as the shadow Minister knows. One thing we want to avoid, though, is duplication. I will set out why I think the amendment is unnecessary on that basis. The provisions set out in part XIV of the Companies Act 1985 allow the Secretary of State to appoint investigators to conduct investigations into companies’ affairs. Part XIV applies to companies, overseas companies, and limited liability partnerships. All of these are bodies corporate with independent legal personality.”
“Clause 134 Limited partnerships: further amendments Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“In terms of the situation with Scotland, it can be confusing for third parties—it might be a bank, for example; opening a bank account—to understand the difference between a business that is operating in Scotland and has a base there, and one that is registered as a Scottish limited partnership. This measure is trying to clarify in law the difference between the two, to try to ensure that the right questions are asked in those circumstances. That is the basis for this clarification. If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady to say why we have determined that regulations made under the negative or affirmative procedure should be treated in the way she describes. Amendment 42 agreed to. Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 132 and 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Clause 134 omits section 17 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, which gives a power to the Board of Trade to make rulings relating to the registrar’s functions, including duties, forms and performance of officers. This is because section 1068 of the Companies Act 2006 contains a power for the registrar to impose requirements about the form, authentication and manner of delivery for documents, which renders section 17 of the 1907 Act unnecessary. Schedule 5 adds new headings to the 1907 Act to ensure that the legislation flows coherently. These reflect the new provisions inserted into the 1907 Act by this Bill.”
“Section 3 of the ECTE Act currently states that the register is to consist of the following: “a list of registered overseas entities…documents delivered to the registrar under this Part or regulations made under it, or otherwise in connection with the register, and…any other information required to be included in the register by this Part or regulations made under it.””
“The clauses that we will now debate in part 3 of the Bill make amendments to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which establishes the register of overseas entities. The amendments all serve either to either address issues identified post-implementation or to align the ECTE Act with similar provisions in companies legislation, for instance provisions relating to false statement offences. The ECTE Act requires overseas entities that own or intend to own land in the United Kingdom to register their beneficial owners with Companies House in certain circumstances. The ROE opened for registrations on 1 August 2022.”
“Gentleman knows, there are significant penalties for not doing so: up to £2,500 per day and a prison sentence of up to five years. That is the risk that those who do not comply are taking, which is pretty significant, so we always thought that there would be a last-minute rush. To answer one or two of his other questions, eight people are working full time on the register of overseas entities and 20 are trained to handle registrations. They are deployed relevant to workload. There is no current backlog at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in this regard. A managing officer is defined in the Act as being akin to a director, secretary or manager.”
“I very much value the hon. Gentleman’s comments and reflections. There is no doubt at all that the measures are a work in progress; that is one of the reasons behind the Bill, of course. I enjoyed answering his questions in writing and we will no doubt correspond further on such matters. He is right to scrutinise the activities of Companies House, which I have sought to do as well. Let me give a few facts that may help the hon. Gentleman. As of today, there are 3,893 registrations; that is a more up-to-date figure than the one I gave him on 11 November, which was about 3,500. That equates to about 400 in the past six or seven days, which illustrates that the number of registrations is increasing significantly. We always thought that there would be a last-minute rush to file because, as the hon.”
“I am not intimately involved in the management of the register. It would be interesting to see and that is a fair point. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I have asked Companies House to provide us with that information, which it has done, about the activities it is undertaking to pursue people who have not yet completed their registration. We will continue to do that. In the meantime, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the points he has raised and, indeed, on his further point about making sure that we have enough staff to deal with the last-minute rush that we anticipate.”
“Gentleman has asked some detailed questions and made some salient points that I want to follow up with Companies House in order to make sure that we can maintain the register properly, and I suggest we correspond on that basis. Question put and agreed to. Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Scott Mann.)”
“I do not see there being a risk of a lack of communication; they seem to be working together adequately. There is no doubt that some information is out of date. Many overseas entities have not kept their address details up to date, and many letters have been returned as undeliverable. Companies House is undertaking open-source research to try to identify up-to-date addresses, and we are working with stakeholders to raise awareness of the requirements and the deadline. Companies House is used to dealing with large number of registrations, and we believe it can handle much larger volumes than it is receiving. The hon.”
“Clause 157 does not alter the requirement for any prosecutions for non-compliance with the 2014 regulations to be mounted or approved by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions—or, in Northern Ireland, by the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions—to ensure that they are in the public interest.”
“Those regulations require certain large businesses in the extractive industries to report annually their payments to overseas Governments associated with the extraction activities. The regulations were brought in to support accountability and to reduce space for corruption. The Government are conducting a post-implementation review of the regulations to evaluate their impacts and effectiveness. However, in advance of that, the Government propose that the false statements offences and penalties in the regulations be updated to provide consistency with other offences, as previously outlined.”
“That aligns with section 32 of the ECTE Act and amendments to that section introduced by the Bill. Clause 137 amends section 32 of the ECTE Act on the general false statement offence. The effect of the amendment is that both the basic offence and the aggravated offence are expanded so that a false statement offence can be committed by a legal entity, and, where this is the case, by every officer of the entity in default. That maintains consistency with other legislation amended by the Bill. The penalty for committing the aggravated offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is also amended in line with the Judicial Review and Courts Act. Clause 157 amends the Reports on Payments to Governments Regulations 2014.”