Hansard

It is right to agree to the motion and allow Westminster, at long last, to legislate on economic crime. However, the bill is only at the second reading stage in the House of Lords, and there are some 47 pages of amendments from the House of Commons alone. Therefore, today we are debating the motion before the content of the bill is clear, and it might well emerge deeply flawed.

It should not have been like that. As Oliver Bullough’s new book, “Butler to the World”, makes clear, the UK has been the hub of international organised crime for years. What is worse is that it is not the case that we simply did not have effective legislation; rather, multiple—in particular, Tory—Governments have deliberately blocked reform. For example, it is on the record that, despite the best efforts of some people, the UK Government refused to tackle the criminality that is associated with Scottish limited partnerships. In doing so, it was effectively colluding with economic crime and corruption.

Legislation must also address the issue of UK banks. How many members in Parliament are aware that, since 2010, UK regulators have imposed penalties, mostly on banks, of more than £739 million for anti-money-laundering failures? The National Crime Agency has stated that, annually, money laundering alone is likely to amount to hundreds of billions of pounds. I have put that fact on the record on a number of occasions in Parliament.

The cynic in me might suggest that the real reason why the Tories in London are at last clamping down on organised corruption is that they do not like the competition. However, we must also look to institutions in Scotland. As Oliver Bullough’s chapter on the Scottish laundromat reveals, one major Scottish law firm threatened a senior investigative journalist with withdrawal of advertising from his paper if a story about SLP criminality was published. Said law firm has fronted huge numbers of SLPs and the Law Society of Scotland has not done enough to discourage their use, as submissions to various consultations have made clear. I appreciate that regulation on that resides with the UK Government, but will the Scottish Government consider how use of SLPs in particular can be discouraged—perhaps by having further discussions with the Law Society?

What are a few of the bill’s weaknesses? Despite claiming to make business vehicles more transparent, they can declare—without challenge—that they do not have a beneficial owner. That makes disclosure completely optional. Another weakness is that there is to be no disclosure of the beneficiaries of trusts that hold property. In addition, there will be only small penalties for missed deadlines and even for false filings.

The most startling weakness of all relates to the requirement to register. I would have thought that secret property ownership by oligarchs and others would be considered to be a bad thing in all circumstances. However, the bill will allow the UK secretary of state to exempt individuals from having to register if exemption is thought to be for our own wellbeing. Perhaps that is a perk for pals of the secretary of state. I do not know.

Of course, we have been promised that another bill will be coming along shortly, as Michael Marra mentioned. Despite Westminster’s track record, we are supposed to believe that, unlike what happened with the Criminal Finances Bill in 2017, resources will be made available to agencies such as Companies House to implement the legislation.

I fully support today’s motion, but I will have to reserve judgment as to the Westminster bill’s success.