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 65 of 71.
“There is a bit of confusion generally about the difference between limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. I think we are talking about limited partnerships here.”
“A named individual will be required for corporate partners—namely, a registered officer. I made that commitment earlier in the debate. I hope the right hon. Lady will be reassured on that point.”
“I am concerned about the abuse, but just as with companies, there can be legitimate reasons why a limited liability partnership might have all corporate partners. For instance, an investment company might a manage a pension fund for a limited partnership. The investment company would be the general partner and manage investments for the limited partners, which generate pension income. It is important for us to get the balance right.”
“The duty in the proposed new section applies only to general partners and not all partners because limited partners are not permitted to engage in management activities. The objective of the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Barking would not be met if a limited partnership’s only natural person was a limited partner, because they would not be permitted to correspond with or act in relation to a notice from the registrar. New clause 58 targets the misuse of limited liability partnerships in opaque corporate structures. While I sympathise with the intent, I cannot support the new clause. UK limited liability partnerships have been named in a number of international money laundering scandals. Many of those will have partners that are solely corporate structures.”
“Introducing those regimes will be one of the implementation priorities post Royal Assent. I repeat my commitment to the Committee that the regulations will be brought forward. I understand that the intention of new clause 57 is to ensure that limited partnerships should always have a partner who is a natural person, in order that the person might be contacted in relation to that limited partnership’s activities. Clause 108 inserts proposed new section 8K into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907: the new section places a duty on limited partnerships to have a registered officer who is a natural person for any general partner who is a legal entity and goes on to place strict duties for notifying any changes to that person to the registrar.”
“Yes. There is no distinction between companies or corporate partners operating offshore to those that are operating onshore. There will be a registered officer in all circumstances. The regulations will address the limited circumstances under which a company will be permitted to have a corporate director. It is important that the regulations are in force before we ban appointment of any corporate directors, that they are aligned with the new reforms proposed in the Bill and, most importantly, that identity verification of the officers of the corporate director can be carried out. It is the Government’s intention that any corporate director be as transparent and accountable as a natural person and therefore we intend to make our corporate director regulations come into force alongside the regulations enabling identity verification.”
“I think the Bill achieves what she has set out, but as I said in my earlier remarks, I am happy to consider what further restrictions on those corporate entities might be appropriate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 108 Officers of general partners”
“I think it passes that test; it certainly seems to pass the test of the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking. In her remarks, she said that we are just looking at one person behind that corporate entity: that is exactly what we are achieving through the regulations, making sure that there is an actual person—a registered officer, a managing officer—who sits behind any corporate entity. That person will be verified, with a UK address. The TCSPs within those organisations, to which the right hon. Lady referred, will also have their identify verified, and anyone who is found guilty of false filing could face significant fines and jail sentences.”
“I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 108, page 86, line 32, at end insert “, and (b) confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).” This amendment would require each general partner that is a legal entity to state, in an application for registration of a limited partnership, whether its registered officer is identify verified or exempt.”
“The other amendments in the group mirror the changes made by clauses 64 and 65, the principles of which we have already debated. They include allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out exemptions to the ID verification requirement. Exemptions may be warranted: for example, where it would not be appropriate to require a registered officer who has already undergone sufficient checks as part of their appointment process to verify their identity. Similarly, the amendments also mirror the regulations requiring statements about identity verification to be accompanied by other statements or other information; making statements relating to ID verification unavailable for public inspection; and introducing an identity verification exemption on the grounds of national security, or to prevent serious crime.”
“Amendments 18 to 24 and 26 to 28 make changes to clauses 108 and 111 of the Bill to extend identity verification requirements to registered officers of corporate general partners of limited partnerships. General partners will be required to confirm whether their registered officer is identity-verified or exempt when registering a limited partnership, becoming a general partner, changing a general partner, or changing the registered officer. A failure to do so will result in those general partners committing an offence. Each proposed registered officer will also be required to confirm whether they are identity-verified or exempt. The corporate general partner will be required to maintain a registered officer, who will have to be verified at all times unless exempted from those requirements.”
“Amendment 24, in clause 108, page 88, line 38, at end insert “, and (ii) confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment would require a new registered officer to confirm whether they are identify verified or exempt.”
“Amendment 23, in clause 108, page 88, line 33, leave out from “partner” to end of line 35 and insert— “(i) confirming that the new registered officer meets the requirements in section 8K(1)(a) and (b), and (ii) confirming that the new registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the new registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii), and”. This amendment would require a general partner, when changing its registered officer, to specify whether its new registered officer is identify verified or exempt.”
“Amendment 21, in clause 108, page 87, line 26, at end insert “, and (c) either— (i) is an individual whose identity is verified (within the meaning of section 1110A of the Companies Act 2006), or (ii) falls within any exemption that may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.” This amendment would require a general partner’s registered officer to be identity verified or exempt. Amendment 22, in clause 108, page 88, line 22, at end insert— “(7) Regulations under subsection (1)(c)(ii) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This amendment makes regulations providing for exemptions from identity verification requirements subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
“Amendments made: 19, in clause 108, page 87, line 11, at end insert “, and (ii) confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).” This amendment would require each proposed registered officer to confirm, in an application for registration of a limited partnership, whether they are identify verified or exempt. Amendment 20, in clause 108, page 87, line 24, leave out “and”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21.”
“The hon. Lady is quite right. Exemptions might be applied where somebody’s identity can be confirmed without verification. An example could be a director appointed by the community interest companies regulator under section 45 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. The CIC regulator and its office is part of a Government Department that is co-located within the registrar. That is simply to ease the burden of bureaucracy where unnecessary. We expect the powers to be used very rarely. We discussed the matter at length earlier in our proceedings and we do not think there is any reason to go further than that at this point in time. I am sure it is a matter for further debate as we progress. Amendment 18 agreed to.”
“(3) The regulations may authorise or require the address to be changed on the registrar’s own motion or on an application by another person. (4) The regulations— (a) may include provision corresponding or similar to any provision that may be included in regulations under section 1097B of the Companies Act 2006; (b) must include— (i) provision about appeals corresponding to the provision that must be included in regulations under section 1097B by virtue of subsections (7) and (8) of that section; (ii) provision corresponding to subsection (9) of that section. (5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.” This amendment confers a regulation-making power to enable the registrar to change the registered service address of a registered officer of a general partner in a limited partnership.”
“I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 108, page 91, line 6, at end insert— “8PA Regulations about change of registered officers’ addresses by registrar (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising or requiring the registrar to change a registered service address of a registered officer of a general partner if satisfied that the address does not meet the requirements of section 1141(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006. (2) In this section— ‘registered officer’ has the meaning given by section 8K(3); ‘registered service address’, in relation to a registered officer, means the address for the time being shown in the register as the registered officer’s current service address.”
“Amendments 31 and 36 are consequential on the fact that proposed new section 10A of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 is no longer needed, and they remove cross-references to it. Amendment 35 ensures that when the registrar receives an application to change the service address, she will be prevented from making that information available for public inspection. The registrar will, however, have to make available for public inspection any court order or direction to change a service address.”
“Amendments 25, 29, 31, 35 and 36 aim to bring about alignment between companies and limited partnerships legislation. Amendments 25 and 29 enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that empower the registrar to take action to move a service address of a general partner, or a registered officer of a general partner, where it does not meet the requirements as set out in legislation, or where it is not the service address of the individual. Those two secondary legislation powers are sufficiently broad that the provisions in clause 114, which provide the registrar with a more narrowly drawn power to move service addresses, are no longer needed. Clause 114 should therefore not stand part of the Bill.”
“(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—( Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring statements about identify verification to be accompanied by other statements or information. It mirrors the amendment to the Companies Act 2006 made by clause 64 of the Bill. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment made: 26, in clause 108, page 91, line 6, at end insert — “8PB Registered officers: statements about exemption from identity verification (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a relevant statement delivered to the registrar to be accompanied by additional statements or additional information in connection with the subject-matter of the relevant statement. (2) In this section “relevant statement” means a statement under any of the following provisions that confirms that a general partner’s registered officer falls within an exemption from identity verification— (a) section 8A(1C)(b) or (1F)(c)(ii); (b) section 8L(3)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii); (c) section 8Q(4)(b) or (7)(c)(ii); (d) section109(2)(a) or113(2)(a) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her points. On why the amendments confer regulation-making powers, as she knows, regulations give us flexibility to change things more easily. The provisions of the regulations are probably moveable feasts. It is sensible not to have them in the Bill, but to be able to learn and change areas as we go along. Amendment 35 would prevent documents relating to changes of address by the registrar under new powers from being made available for public inspection. If I can, I will get back to the hon. Lady later in the debate about the particular circumstances she described. Amendment 25 agreed to.”
“That allows the register to be brought up to date while giving sufficient time for general partners to submit the required information without being immediately liable to an offence.”
“The measures will increase transparency of the partnership activity by further identifying who is involved in the chain of management. They also ensure that the registrar has a point of contact for the general partner for compliance and enforcement purposes. General partners who are legal entities are responsible for keeping that information up to date. If they fail to comply, they are liable for an offence and a substantial fine. That could also fall on any managing officers who are in default. Clause 109 introduces a six-month transition period within which existing partnerships’ general partners that are legal entities must bring themselves into compliance by submitting a statement to the registrar setting out those details.”
“When registering a limited partnership, the names of the general partners are currently required. Not all general partners are individuals; they can instead be a business entity. That means there is often no named individual associated with that general partner or indeed the partnership. Clause 108 introduces a requirement for general partners that are legal entities to provide a registered officer for that entity. As I set out earlier, general partners must ensure that their registered officers are individuals and have had their identity verified. The clause also requires general partners that are legal entities with one or more corporate managing officers to have a named natural person contact for each of those corporate managing officers.”
“Clause 110 removes the option to authenticate limited partnerships registration applications, as well as applications for designation as a private fund limited partnership, by signature. A signature, which is something readily forged, is no longer a necessary requirement as the Bill introduces other means of electronic authentication to ensure the correct delivery of documents to the registrar by authorised persons. Those means will be robust, secure and effective. Furthermore, other similar provisions that require general partners to deliver documents to the registrar, such as confirmation statements, do not require a signature. The clause therefore creates alignment across the Limited Partnerships Act.”
“As I said, a wet signature is not the key to preventing inappropriate filing documents or inappropriate use of any kind of entity, be it a limited partnership or a company. We are in the modern age now, when many of us approve documents through electronic means. The key to ensuring that we have a register that has integrity and is correct is in the other measures, as we have set out many times.”
“Amendment 28, in clause 111, page 93, line 17, at end insert— “, and (ii) confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment would require the proposed registered officer for a new general partner which is a legal entity to confirm whether they are identify verified or exempt .”
“Clause 111 Notification of information about partners Amendments made: 27, in clause 111, page 92, line 34, at end insert— “, and (b) confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).” This amendment would require a new general partner which is a legal entity to confirm whether its proposed registered officer is identify verified or exempt.”
“The clause does remove the option of a wet signature. It means that electronic means are fine, which already applies to companies. The key to uncovering an undoing, with a wet signature or not, is the other measures in the Bill: sharing of information, sanctions for false filing of documents, criminal sanctions and all those other measures that we discussed by which we can identify wrongdoing and take action against those who are culpable. Question put and agreed to . Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill .”
“Examples of circumstances in which a general partner might reasonably, but mistakenly, believe that notification of their appointment had been given might include where a general partner has asked its authorised corporate service provider to submit the application, which has been delayed in circumstances beyond the general partner’s control and without their knowledge, or where there has been a technical hitch of which they were unaware—for example, if the information was being supplied electronically. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.”
“Amendment 162 would remove that defence, making the person strictly liable despite their reasonably held belief. General partners who deliberately fail to comply with the requirement to notify the registrar of their appointment should of course be punished for that offence. In the example that the hon. Lady raises, it may well be that if other general partners were guilty of not properly submitting information, they may be guilty of that offence too. The registrar would make a decision accordingly. Notwithstanding that the Bill creates these offences, in our view the general partner should not be liable for the offence if they have acted on the basis of an objectively reasonable belief.”
“On the hon. Lady’s point relating to amendment 35 regarding an address that might be removed from public view, a person could apply to the registrar because their address has been fraudulently registered as that of a general partner. Amendment 35 would mean that the person’s application was not visible to the public, therefore protecting the applicant. That is the sort of circumstance in which the registrar would use that power. Clause 111 makes it an offence for a person to act as a general partner of a limited partnership if the registrar has not been notified that the person has become a general partner with 14 days of their appointment. A general partner who manages the firm without that notification having been given on time but in the reasonable belief that notification was given has a defence to prosecution.”
“Sometimes in life, things happen and it may well be that they are not drawn to the attention of the general partner. The hon. Lady may think there should be a requirement on the general partner to check that the record has been properly made. It is a reasonableness defence. We expect the registrar to use her judgment in the exercise of any decision about whether an offence has been committed. We may need to agree to disagree on this particular point.”
“The current penalty of a £1 daily fine on each of the general partners, set back in 1907 when the original legislation was passed, is an insufficient deterrent. The new penalty may be applied if the general partners fail to inform the registrar of changes to a limited partnership’s name, place of business, nature and character of business, or capital contributions by partners occurring after application but before registration.”
“If the required information is not submitted within this period, the Registrar may reasonably conclude the limited partnership is dissolved and consider taking steps towards deregistering it. Clause 113 requires that new general partners of limited partnerships that were registered prior to the commencement of this Bill must inform the Registrar who their managing officers or named contacts are, or to confirm that they do not have any managing officers. Again, there is a six-month transition period during which this information must be provided. Clause 115 creates a more robust offence for failing to provide requested information to the registrar, replacing the existing offence with a stiffer penalty.”
“Under current legislation, general partners are required to notify the registrar of changes to partners or partner information. Clause 111 clearly sets out what information must be kept up to date on the register and places responsibility on general partners to notify the registrar of changes. They will commit an offence and be liable for a substantial fine in instances of non-compliance. Clause 111 goes further, stating that general partners who join limited partnerships after registration must notify the registrar within 14 working days of their appointment. Otherwise, they are prohibited from managing the business. Clause 112 requires that general partners of limited partnerships registered prior to the commencement of this Bill provide the information set out in clause 111 within a six-month transition period.”
“Clause 111, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 112 and 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 114 disagreed to. Clause 115 Notification of other changes Amendment made : 31, in clause 115, page 99, line 1, leave out “10A (inserted by section 114 of this Act)” and insert “10”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30. Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 116 Confirmation statements”
“The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. As I said earlier, that is the kind of information I would like to see reported, so that Parliament and the public can see activities surrounding the legislation and the regulations clearly and ensure that Companies House is doing its job. There should be a proper conversation with members of the Committee, the wider House, officials and indeed Companies House to determine what the appropriate measures should be, but the key thing is not the measures, but the outcomes. I think the right hon. Lady, like me, would be very happy if no penalties were applied, as long as our system was 100% clean. That is what we are aiming for, and ideally it is what our measures will achieve; to me, that is the most important thing. Question put and agreed to.”
“I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 116, page 102, leave out lines 6 and 7. This amendment means that new section 10E of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (confirmation statements) will apply to Scottish limited partnerships. As a consequence, Amendment 33 leaves out the power in clause 117 to amend existing provision about confirmation statements for Scottish limited partnerships.”
“Limited partnerships that wish to update the registrar on a more frequent basis will be permitted to do so by notifying the registrar. Given that it is critical for the register to be up to date, general partners of limited partnerships that fail to deliver their confirmation statement will commit an offence. SLPs already submit confirmation statements to the registrar concerning the information held about them and their beneficial owners. That is a requirement under the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017.”
“To aid understanding of the amendments, I will first explain clauses 116 and 117, which they amend. It is essential that the registrar and the public can be assured that the information held on the register concerning limited partnerships is accurate and up to date. Scottish limited partnerships already supply some of that information through a confirmation statement. Clause 116 introduces a similar requirement for all limited partnerships, irrespective of the jurisdiction of their registration, to confirm that the information held about them on the register is current. It will also ensure that limited partnerships that are registered prior to commencement of the Bill provide a confirmation statement within six months.”
“The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the general partners of UK-registered limited partnerships to provide accounting information to HMRC, closing the current gap. General partners who do not comply with that requirement will commit an offence and be liable to a fine or imprisonment.”
“Limited partnerships are tax transparent, meaning that the individuals that are part of the limited partnership pay tax, rather than the limited partnership itself. In many cases, the partners of a limited partnership will pay tax in the UK, either because they are individuals who pay income tax or because they are corporate entities that pay corporation tax. Where the partners are UK corporate entities, they will also provide accounting information to the registrar. However, there are some limited partnerships whose partners do not pay tax in the UK or which are not legally required to provide accounting information to the UK Government.”
“The right hon. Member for Barking went to a very tough school. She is not an easy person to please. Quite rightly, she is very demanding of more action in various areas; I support that, as she knows. HMRC is not directly answerable to BEIS. It reports to the Treasury, of course.”
“Certainly, enforcement in all areas is something we need to look at carefully. Question put and agreed to. Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered , That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Scott Mann .)”
“The right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I agree about enforcement, but I question the right hon. Lady’s language a little bit. She implied that HMRC is useless in certain contexts. I have met Jim Harra and other people from HMRC and found them to be diligent, decent people seeking to do the right job. The vast majority of people in any agency—officials, or whoever—do not go to work to do a bad job, so I think the language she used is not helpful. We do need to beef up enforcement in all sectors, whether we are talking about tax avoidance, evasion or economic crime, and I absolutely support that. We see time and again that the return on investment from the extra enforcement capability is more than worth while for the taxpayer. I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Lady’s remarks but not some of the language around them.”
“Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) talked about the opportunities in the space and satellite sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) talked about investing in British talent, in students and workers, which I also agree with.”
“Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), rightly said that steel’s future was part of the solution for net zero, rather than part of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) talked about the 9,000 high-skilled, well-paid jobs created by this Conservative Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) talked about the green hydrogen opportunities on Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) talked about the £407 billion committed by this Government to saving jobs and businesses during the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) talked about place-based solutions to growth, which I entirely agree with. My hon.”