21/03/2017 House of Commons

am very happy to relay that concern to the IRp. -- IRP. We must move on.

Urgent question. John McDonald. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

if he will make a statement on allegations of money-laundering

against British banks. Mr Speaker, we want our financial institutions

to lead the way in the global fight against money-laundering. This is

not only a question of financial crime, as well as terrorist

organisations, this is about keeping our citizens safe. That is where the

Government is doing what it takes to prevent and pursuing anyone who

might seek to abuse our financial system. The Financial Conduct

Authority and the National Crime Agency take any such allegations

seriously and will investigate closely with the recent information

from the Guardian newspaper regarding money-laundering from

Russia or indeed any other media source, would allow the progression

of an investigation. Beyond that, we need to ensure sophisticated

criminal networks cannot exploit our financial services industry. This

Government already does more than any other to tackle the global

threat of money-laundering. Since 2010, we have seized 1.4 billion in

illegal funds and put hundreds of millions more beyond the reach of

criminals. We've set up the Panama papers task force, hosted the global

anti-corruption Summit last year and now we are preparing the most

significant changes to our anti-money laundering machine in

over a decade. We are putting in the UK at the forefront of international

efforts to crack down on money-laundering with new

regulations in place by the end of June. We are bringing in a

landlocked piece of legislation in the Criminal Finances Bill. This

will allow banks to share more information than ever to uncover

more money laundering and give enforcement agents powers to bring

criminals to justice. Domestic changes alone aren't enough in the

role of global criminal networks. That is why we are working closely

with our international partners to stand up to this threat together.

And work continues at a place with the Chi 20 and financial action task

force whose mentorship includes all of the world's leading financial

centres. We've led the way getting 90 countries to exchange data on

offshore accounts and appalled a global standard of tax transparency.

We are determined to make the UK the most Google place in the world of

international crime networks to channel their finances. We won't

relent in our efforts to do that. I don't believe the minister

recognises the immense gravity of the situation we are facing and that

statement is reflected on complacency on the part of the

Government. Let us go through the allegations which are of the deepest

concern. It is alleged by an operation referred to as the global

launder mats, banks based in Britain have been used to launch a immense

sense of money and taken criminal activity in Russia link to the spy

agency. This appears to point to an overwhelming failure of basic

management on the part of the banks themselves. In the case of one of

those banks, HSBC, this is an institution that has previously

faced money-laundering charges in the US and across the globe. The

directive mention of the Government helped block the 2012 US

investigation on the grounds of its risk to financial stability.

Money-laundering through London and elsewhere threatens the financial

stability of our sector and economy. In the case of another bank, RBS,

the Government owns 75% stake in the bank itself and a third, Barclays,

has been involved in its role for libel rigging. Can the Minister give

us some more specific details about what steps are being taken to

address this scandal and include the assurance that there will be the

potential of opening up criminal proceedings to break up what is

effectively a criminal network? Can the Government also undertake that

it will not come as it has in the past with HSBC, attempt to intervene

in criminal or other investigations taking place elsewhere in the world?

The major risk to financial stability is not from investigations

intended to clear out the criminal activity, it's about inactivity from

the Government and others. The risk is about failing to act and ensuring

our major banks are clean and fit for purpose. All the banks have

claimed to have strict internal policies to deal with

money-laundering. The Financial Conduct Authority places stress on

the need for banks to self police and create appropriate internal

proceedings to prevent money-laundering. It is obvious that

the current arrangements are not working. There is widespread

organised and sophisticated criminal activity. Can the Government tell

the House what steps it will be taken to address this and will the

Government commit to an opening of an enquiry to report on the measures

to be taken that will strengthen the regulations including tighter

controls and closer monitoring of banks? Where the Government owns

major stakes in banks involved, particularly RBS, there is immediate

need for the Government to reassure taxpayers that publicly owned banks

are not indirectly involved in criminal activity. What steps will

the Government be taking as a major shareholder, to investigate the

allegations against RBS and reassure taxpayers? Yet again our banks have

been found to be wanting. Urgent action is needed by the Government

to protect the standing of our finance sector and indeed protect

our economy. Complacency and inaction is not good enough.

I can assure him that we are far from complacent. We have been

updating the money-laundering regulations. I hope it will receive

Royal assent in the near future. He asked about the SCA, which find

Deutsche Bank recently. They take misconduct three seriously. He asks

about whether we should be telling them what to do. If this information

reveals new findings, the SCA will be able to investigate accordingly.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on potential legal

proceedings. Does the level of commitment

expressed in our hosting of the anti-corruption Summit not a year

ago still exist to drive forward its agenda? Absolutely. This government

is fully committed to making sure that taxpayers are fully protected

and we do all we can to stamp out illegal money-laundering activity.

This revelation is shocking, but I have to say it is not in the least

bit surprising. For over a year now in this House, I've been campaigning

in areas associated with this. Subsequent to the story being

released yesterday evening, I've undertaken research which indicates

that at the heart of this, it is the use of the banks' limited

partnerships. It allows criminals to hide their ownership of companies.

It is true that mechanism that this is happening. I have a number of

questions for the Minister. First of all, on Friday, a review was closed

into limited partnerships. Will the Government now allow myself and

other interested members to resubmit to this, although it has formally

closed, so we can raise this important matter and have it

considered in the review? Secondly, surely when one looks at the outcome

of the extent of this, it is just too much to believe that we are the

worldly do in money-laundering regulations in general. Surely it is

time to have another look at this. Thirdly, one of the key concerns

about banks in recent years is the way in which they have not had a

supportive regime for whistle-blowing. Surely we need to

encourage, not inhibit whistle-blowing?

Thank you. My understanding in this alleged case, that the bodies do not

use limited partnerships. Last year, Bays introduced the people with

significant control register, and we will be consulting shortly on UK

property owning foreign companies. He mentioned limited partnership

concentrations, I'm sure any honourable or right honourable

member wanting to write to the Secretary of State can do so. It is

also appropriate to say that we are world leaders when it comes to

financial regulation. The FCA do a good job. They are held in high

regard by the rest of the world, striking the right balance between

consumer protection and fairness. I know that this is an issue that my

honourable friend takes very seriously. Can he tell the House how

unexpired wealth orders will prevent them was using the proceeds of crime

going forward? He races an aborted part of the criminal finances Bill

which is going through the Other Place as we speak will stop I look

forward to a time when that receives while I centre becomes legislation,

giving new powers to stop this activity. The economic Secretary has

shown real complacency about what is a huge and building scandal which

has been revealed by the Guardian today. Given that our banking sector

is very large and that the consequences of it being

destabilised by this kind of criminal behaviour are very, very

serious for our economy, doesn't the Minister realise that his

complacent, process driven answers today are simply not good enough?

I don't recognise that at all. I would say the FCA are well placed to

investigate this if appropriate. I would also say that not only do we

have world leading financial regulation, be also have world

leading financial services. There are people up and down the country

who work in financial services and the vast jollity of those work hard,

do a good job and represent companies as best they can. We have

applied the measures that the Government is undertaking. I have

mentioned everything. This government is doing more than any

time in the last ten years to tackle this issue. Given the overlap

between money-laundering networks and those of and terrorist

financing, it is not an issue of national security, and we need

greater information sharing between the private sector, regulatory

bodies and law enforcement agencies? He is right. Greater information

sharing, transparency is the way forward. People were significant

control register is an aborted instead -- an important step. At the

end of the day, people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Could

the Minister tell us which British banks have been convicted of

money-laundering in the last five years, and what specific individual

thing as he learned from reading those judgments? I think the

question was discourteous but not disorderly. There is a distinction.

He has been practising that technique is all the 30 years I have

known him, in all different forums. It was not one of the more extreme

examples will stop the FCA have carried out a number of enforcement

actions, large and small, over a different number of financial

service providers. It is important that a balance is struck at all

times. If these allegations are proven,

particularly against a bank which the covenant owns a majority stake

in, will he commit to using the full powers of the common finances Bill

to clamp down on this type of money-laundering which will be a

national disgrace? I beg by oral friend for his

question. It is worth saying that our shareholding is at arms length.

The board in thing the -- the important thing is that we do not

repeat the mistakes of the past. I wonder if the Minister had discussed

the matter with the former Chancellor, who the House of

Representatives set stocked HSBC from being prosecuted. What

specifically has FCA done since laundromat was discovered in 2013?

I have not had that conversation with the right honourable member

that she mentions, but it is fair to say that the FCA have carried out a

number of investigations. It is right and proper that they do so. It

would not be appropriate for me, they are an independent operational

body, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. It seems to

me and many others that there is an unwritten deal here, which is that

the Russians and others of dubious or illegal means come to this

country, they send their kids to our schools, they buy our real estate or

how sports clubs and get involved in our country on the basis that while

they are here, they do no wrong. That is not an acceptable way on

which to go forward. If it ever was, is no longer is. I put it to my

honourable friend, is it not now time to have a rethink about this?

He raises an interesting point. This government is doing more than ever

before tackle this. When it comes to money-laundering, the Department

have... Will consider any action that needs to be taken to address

the concerns in due course. To a long list of misdemeanours

committed by banks for which the directors have not been held

responsible, we now have an allegation of money-laundering. One

of the explanations given is that directors of banks seek compliance

as an expense with no return. Can the Minister give us an assurance

that these allegations will be properly investigated by criminal

investigators, and that if it is found that directors have been

encouraging slackness in compliance for their own profit of their banks,

they will feel the full weight of the law and they will realise there

is a cost of slack compliance in their own personal lives?

I thank him for his question. He is right. Not only do we have a

well-regarded financial regulation system, we also have a rule of law

which is both fair and effective, and if there is any wrongdoing or

impropriety, it is right and proper that those people face the full

weight of the law. How many money-laundering 's have been sent

to prison in the last five years? I thank Mike friend for that question.

I'm not aware of the exact answer for that, but I will write to him

with all the information I can. I'm convinced that a round the world and

in this country, it is something that is taken seriously.

Is the Government or any other public agency in Britain

investigating, or you see any of the -- what is the aware of any other

investigation whether the money was channelled to either believe

campaign for the Trump presidential campaign? I can be clear that I am

not aware of any connection at all. It is right and proper that the FCA

have been undertaking a watch on this issue for some time. It is a

confidential matter. If there is new information, I'm sure they would

consider it. Compliance officers across the banking sector by a key

role in stepping up the behaviour reported. Can the Minister assure

the House that the regulators are making sure that they are properly

trained and complied on the ground? That is the case. It is right and

proper that this issue of money-laundering is addressed from

top to bottom. Everyone has an possible part to play.

-- a responsible part to play. Having claimed there was little

evidence of economic wrongdoing going unpunished, the MHA is

considering whether it should extend that to money-laundering. Are the

allegations highlighting the fact that the law needs to be toughened

up in this area? I am sure they will have listened carefully to the point

she has made. Minister, the report indicates that many of the funds

laundered went into shell companies. Can the Minister explain how the

first register of equitable ownership help prosecuting

authorities bring those who benefit from these funds to justice? The

people with significant control register is open for everyone to

see. There are thousands if not millions of people able to see it.

Transparency is the best thing, making people aware of wrongdoing,

making sure that nothing is hidden. It is clear the current measures are

not sufficient in tackling this money-laundering. Can I ask the

Minister, considering we have dirty money channelled through our banks,

how much worse would be at the Chancellor gets his vision of this

country becoming a corporate haven, another Panama post Brexit? That

isn't the Chancellor's vision. I am consulting on the fourth

money-laundering directive. We mentioned the Criminal Finances Bill

in the other place and the FCA of vigilant in enforcing and taking

misconduct very seriously. Having witnessed first-hand the

anti-money-laundering procedures of UK banks where wanting to open a

bank account or keeping open an existing bank accounts, I wonder how

any organisation has managed to launder ill gotten gains through our

banks. I can only company that complying with the regulations is

seen them all as a tick box exercise. Does he agree that banks

should adopt a more proportionate and common-sense approach when

dealing with members of the public? He will be pleased that the fourth

money-laundering directive includes something we are consulting on as we

speak and includes the provision for a more proportional approach when it

comes to this very issue. I hope in the near future that the banks will

take a proportionate approach in the future. The home affairs committee

estimate 100 Berliners laundered through London every year but only

0.17% of that has been frozen. We might as well go from here, go to

Heathrow and portable welcome sign for Russian winters and

money-laundering is. Five criminal complaints have been submitted to

law enforcement agencies about money-laundering. Not a single one

has resulted in the opening of a criminal case whereas 12 other

countries have opened investigations on the same evidence. The question

is this. What is necessary to get UK law enforcement to do their jobs and

prosecute money-laundering is here? Why has this not be working and what

is he going to do about it? I would say to the honourable gentleman, if

it's appropriate, I would hope the MCA did some considerable amount

about it. They are independently operational bodies and it is right

and proper that I cannot comment at the dispatch box about what may --

about what not happen. HSBC has been a serial offender in

money-laundering all around the world. They have had finds in the MS

-- US and Switzerland. There was cause for an investigation into

other banks in 2012. This was first reported in 2014 is so yesterday's

news is a new news. It compounds the skill of the problem -- scale of the

problem. If the UK will is a world leader in money-laundering and

financial regulations, how bad is it in the rest of the world and what is

the UK doing to stamp it out elsewhere? It raises an interesting

point. It is important to work with the countries around the world to

make sure this is something that we work in cooperation together with.

We have been very clear that we will work with them and clear that we

will work with other regulators around the world. That is important.

This is not something we can domestically solve on our own.

Investigators at the National Crime Agency are saying Russian officials

have been hampering their investigations by refusing to

cooperate. What discussions has he had with his Foreign Office

counterparts to see whether they can broker better relationship with

those Russian officials? I would imagine the FCA are in contact with

the FCO and if it is appropriate, they will have conversations about

it. What is important is if these allegations of correct, if they

present any new information about the MCA and FCA act inappropriately.

Can I ask the minister why the Chancellor is not here because

frankly his answers have been appalling today. Some ?80 billion

worth of money could have been laundered according to this story.

Does he not think we should think again about the powers that the FCA

and other regulators have to prevent this happening? Can he please answer

some questions? I have been doing my very best to answer the questions.

Sadly I can't be held responsible for the quality or content of the

question. I am the Minister responsible for the financial

services. We are responsible for legislating the criminal finance

bill. It is an example of what we are doing. The FCA are in constant

dialogue with the banks and Government to make sure they move

with the times. If it is found during the investigation that

terrorism has been facilitated through this, what personal

responsibility will the Minister take that dreadful events? These

schemes operated from 2010 to 2014. The honourable member mentioned the

independent story in 2014. If there is new evidence, it is important the

MCA and FCA look at that evidence and act accordingly. We've set up

these bodies to act operationally and independently away from the

Government and that is right and proper. On a point of order, on a

point of rectification. On Thursday 16th of March, the Parliamentary

Commissioner for standards published a report on a complaint about my

declarations in the register which concluded that the rules were

breached to how I registered information and its subsequent din

an admission that failed to draw the House's attention to the interests

were asking a question about the future of deep coal mining in the UK

on 13th of March. I wish to apologise to the House fully and

unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the

rules with which I have an all-time sort to comply. Sun-macro I am

grateful to the honourable gentleman for what he said and it will have

been heard unappreciated by the House. I seek your advice concerning

the emergency PIP regulations that came into force last Thursday. 160

members of the House have signed a prayer against the regulations. A

date has been arranged for next week in the other place but to date, the

Government has refused to arranged -- arrange a debate. There is a huge

to McGrath to devastate with regulations in force by in statutory

achievements. It is a sad reflection of the Government's attitude to this

house. 180,000 people have signed a petition against the regulation. 81%

-- eight 1000 disabled people have been through a PIP assessment which

will deny people access to additional support. Please can he

advised me on how I compress the Government to hold a debate on

regulations before we rise for Easter recess? The honourable lady

has raised a point with very considerable force. She has

underlined the reason that its urgency. I have noted the numbers to

which she referred of members who have prayed against the regulations.

The point of order isn't a matter for the chair but it will have been

heard on the Treasury bench and it is not an unreasonable hope and

expectation on her part and that of those members who prayed against the

regulations. There will be a debate arranged in a timely fashion.

Insofar as she seeks advice, I would say to her that she and her

colleagues could use the opportunity of business questions on Thursday to

press their claims in respect of the schedule the next week's business.

It is next week the honourable lady is concerned. Whether group

activity, significant numbers raising the matter will be

effective, I don't know. If anything will, it might. I will leave it

there for now. If there are no further points of order, we come out

of the ten Minute Rule Motion. I beg to move that leave be given to bring

in a bill to require homeowners to notify local authorities of an

intention to register accommodation for short or holiday lets. Good

ideas can be undermined when a minority abuse or exploit them

causing harm to others and undermining the well-being of the

wider community. The sharing of community is fizzing with good ideas

and opportunities. The potential use of resources from Labour to

transport, to homes, can be made more by the speed and flexibility of

digital communications. We should not be putting berries in its way.

That is not the same as saying there should be no rules. Individuals need

to be protected and those rules we agree on must be enforced. On the

need for further action, we have an emerging consensus including London

councils, the Mayor of London and London Assembly members. Today I'm

putting forward a proposal which will make it possible to effectively

enforce the rules preventing the abuse of short and holiday let

accommodation. Whilst I welcome their freedom for home owners to let

their properties for such purposes without bureaucratic interference,

it is difficult and expensive for cash-strapped councils to police the

rules. With no requirement to see petition for a short let, the only

way to identify this and where those lettings are in breach of the rules,

is by having staff claim the various websites in order to find them. Some

of us flagged up during the passage of the deregulation bill which

reduce the number, it can be tough when there is no notification. River

Nar property is let the mother of three months in any one year is

labour intensive, expensive and cumbersome. As officers in my local

authority have been of great help in preparing this bill, have told me,

it is difficult to determine the addresses as there is no prior

notification system. My officers spend and cumbersome. As officers

are my local authority have been of great help in preparing this bill,

have told me, it is difficult to determine the addresses as there is

no prior notification system. My officers spend Anna Norman at amount

of time looking for websites where addresses are not advised. We are up

against it but remain vigilant and continue to do all we can to do with

the commercial lets. Some people who are using at B see why does it

matter? Why shouldn't we do what we want with our properties? They are

the sharing economy earning a bit of extra cash from a spare room or

whether they are away themselves. They are aware of legal

responsibilities and considerate of neighbours. Alongside the

responsible owner are irresponsible ones. It legal sub letters and a

significant commercial operations seeking to take advantage of higher

yields. Across all London boroughs in the year following the

deregulation act, there was a citywide 127% increase in short

lettings advertised on Airbnb alone. Westminster saw an 80% increase but

some borough saw bigger rises. Camden was 124% and Brent, 762%.

There is no evidence to suggest the short let phenomenon is expanding.

The latest data on inside Airbnb confirms 50,000 lettings across

Edinburgh, Manchester alone. In terms of potential breaches of the

law, my borough is investigating more than 1100 properties that are

believed to have breached the limit. In the early part of last year, the

number of properties listed as opposed to rooms listed on Airbnb

increased by a quarter from 17,000 to 21,000 800. Research by the

residential landlords Association shows 41% of at B listings in

London in June last year were multi-listings. -- Airbnb. This

increase to 17,590 properties is also a sign that websites are

becoming increasingly commercialised. 54% of entire homes

in Manchester and 43% in Edinburgh were identified as multi listing

properties. Indicating the trend is going well beyond the image of the

sharing economy. Two sets of issues arise and stop the first is the loss

of residential accommodation. Short lets can bring out three times the

income of more traditional flat rentals. ?1800 a week on average

according to Westminster for a two bed flat as opposed to 620 for a

short tenancy. Even before the deregulation bill, evidence

suggestive frazzle being converted into semipermanent holiday lets but

now the pressure is more. The potential to earn bowl is a key

issue on some sites. The magic and on over weekend stays can beat what

you achieve full a weekly tenancy. You can choose when to put your

property are correct and when not to. Another company says that

another company generate more income than regular lats. This leads to a

longer term loss of residential lets. Westminster Council alone

estimates there ... On constituent wrote to me to say, this style of

letting has nothing to do with people making extra money and aside

from their homes by renting out the order, the original premise. It has

now become a licence for people to make big and nontax declared money

at the expense of residents in comparison to its more considerable

downsides. Constituents were coming to raise concerns about the impact

of their communities becoming an unofficial part of the hotel and

hospitality industry. It raises questions that range from the impact

of transience to their security, to Anti-Social Behaviour Order rising

from noise, and waste issues, overcrowding and a whole range of

other sources of disturbance. Those disturbances place a cost and the

local authority as well. There right enforcement costs, the costs of

noise and other breaches of regulations which are to be met by

cash-strapped local authorities. Because it would wrote to say, we

are facing house in Bayswater, divided into six lats week manage

ourselves. All but one are now non-owner occupied. A few weeks ago,

it became obvious they were renting and AirBNB. Our front door key in

the stranger's hand. I'm sure it breaches the terms of the building

insurance as well. These requirements are being breached as a

result of short lats. Meanwhile, tax revenues are going down, and

certainly other cities are finding this. One article which looked at

the American experience looked at the number of grievances cities have

with short reds in terms of lost revenue. A study from all the rooms

.com, a vacation search engine found that 2016 revenue would amount to

almost $440 million if they were taxed at the same rate as

traditional hotels. That is the American experience, we do not have

UK experience, but that is where we are going. Councils now have to

prove that property is not only being short-lived but has been done

so for more than 90 days idiot, a far harder and resource intensive

case. What can be done to resolve this? We are looking for local

authorities and the Government to be more prepared to intervene to exempt

neighbourhoods from the current set of regulations. They have the power

to do this, Westminster Council applied and was turned down and be

considering a fresh application. The platforms can do more. AirBNB has

themselves they will enforce the 90 day rule. They believe it is for the

host to uphold the law, and not themselves as letting platforms.

What is now necessary for this Bill aims to do is to deduce a light

touch online notification system, which allows local authorities to

nowhere short holiday lets are taking place. Let's make sure this

does not intensify the housing crisis, land costs on others whilst

sharing none of the rewards and evict misery and long-term residents

who can find themselves waking up in a Hotel Annex after all the

caretakers have gone home. The question is that the on-board

member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many of that opinion, say

I. To the contrary, no. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring

in the Bill? Jim Fitzpatrick, Andy Slaughter, Kate Green, Peter Kyle,

Kerry McCarthy at myself, sir. Shortened holiday let -- short and

holiday let accommodation notification of authorities Bill.

Intellectual property and its Bill for, not amended to be considered.

Thank you. We begin with new clause one. To move which, I call Mr Bill

Asmussen. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Intellectual property makes

a significant contribution to the UK economy each year. In 2014, UK firms

estimated ?3 billion in knowledge assets competitive 21 billion pounds

in tangible assets. It has risen to 70 billion in 2014 and has been

estimated at 4.2% of total GDP. What is more, the UK system of regulating

intellectual property is considered to be one of the best rated, another

three in the 2016 index. In terms of enforcing the main types of

intellectual property rights. It is clear therefore that intellectual

property is of great importance to the UK economy. The impact of

leaving the European Union on IP is of vital importance to the economy.

It is of great interest to businesses who value certainty and

its aborted due investors in businesses in the United Kingdom.

This Bill applies to patents, trademarks and designs. The minister

stated during committee stage that the European patents office or

established by international treaty and our participation in the

European agent of this will be unaffected by our leaving the

European Union. The suggestion is that patents will be untouched by

Brexit. It is to be hoped that the minister's confidence is not

misplaced. However, there are a number of IP rights deriving from EU

regulations which will no longer apply to the UK and the impact of

Brexit is at this stage far from clear. As the chartered is a jute of

Pete and attorneys -- Institute of patent attorneys. It may be

negotiated for rights holders to confirm these international rights

or file separate rights. The Government has remained silent on

whether or not it intends to implement the new directive in the

UK domestic law. In addition, the minister signalled the Government's

intention to ratify the called agreement by the end of April. The

court deals with disputes relating to patents. If Bruce the threat of

unjustified litigation, a point made by Mike honourable friend at

committee. Can I ask the Minister, will be still be members of the

court after we leave the European Union? It is part of reducing costs

across jurisdictions, making it easier to do business. The last

thing we need is additional costs and business. Clarity is needed of

our membership of the court. He said Ossetians had not been taken, so

will the update is and will he confirm his understanding of just

how important it is that we minimise the costs across jurisdictions,

including with intellectual property rights and what his view is about

our potential mothership of the patent court -- our potential

membership. There would need to be a new international agreement with the

participating member states, and the UK, to avoid compatibility with EU

law. -- to provide compatibility. There will be a need for further

legislation to deal with cases in progress. It will be unclear whether

UK attorneys will be able to represent parties after exit.

There is a strong preference for the UK to participate in the system if a

solid legal basis for this can be agreed. Given the leading position

this country has in patent and patent law. It is a board and to do

all we can to maintain our position and make sure confidence remains as

high as possible in our position. It is important we avoid taking a step

back and losing the benefits that a development of single UK develop and

patent protection for brain. The economic and competitive advantage

of such protection are clear enough, and it must be that the alternative

of having a separate UK system and the likely need for rights holders

to apply for UK and EU protection separately will mean additional

burned -- burdens for UK companies. Mike honourable friend from

Newcastle Central said it is vital that Mr takes all steps to make sure

patent law and IP law more generally do not take a retrograde step

following Brexit. IP is how innovation is rewarded. It is

fundamental in the during our ability to maintain the high pay

economy, and that the next generation is better off than the

last. We have seen living standards fall since 2010 as the economy has

risen. The people of this country cannot afford to miss opportunities,

including this one. The alternative of acting as a tax dodgers Paradise

will not offer better living standards, and intellectual property

is one of many ways in which we must build on our success as a country at

not allow decline. How intellectual property rights are protected and

how they are seen to be protected during negotiations over Brexit are

crucial to delivering and enhancing is this confidence. To investor

confidence, and to the best outcome of those negotiations. The Prime

Minister might not wish to give a running commentary but she and her

ministers do need to reassure business and their staff and the

whole country that everything is being done to secure our future.

That is why I have tabled the amendment, calling for the governor

to review the impact of Brexit and the IP provisions in this Bill. A

report back after a year would help bring back sovereignty into this

Parliament, something we have heard a great deal about Jerry referendum

debate. It would help investors to understand what the post Brexit

intellectual property world would be related to the provisions in this

Bill. The protections harmonised in the Bill are important to protect

our businesses, to ensure a fair market, to encourage entrepreneurs

and inventors, to ensure virginity for smaller businesses, especially

that those businesses and other but as want to know what the other

agents -- what the arrangements will be like after Brexit. I saw this

from a law firm who say that discussions are taking place

regarding the post Brexit options. IP rights will be affected.

Trademarks and designs are likely to be the IP rights most affected, but

it will impact on other IP rights as well. And leaving the European

Union, the United Kingdom will no longer automatically be covered by

EU trademarks. An orderly transitional period is expected,

with the potential to split existing EU trademarks in the UK National and

EU trademarks post Brexit. Subject to negotiation and relevant

supporting legislation. Trademark owners will need to reinstate lapsed

UK marks which are being submitted into EU trademarks by seniority, but

it is not yet clear how that will work.

New EU trademark filings will not extend to the UK. Trademark owners

will need to seek national protection in the UK for their

trademarks. Application through the Madrid protocol will still be

available for designating the UK. The court system will no longer have

EU trademark courts post Brexit. The EU trademark holders will not be

able to enforce them in the UK and obtain an EU junctions under the EU

trademark regulation. The effect on pan EU injunctions already granted

is unknown. Brexit will impact on the general jurisdiction of the UK

courts. Infringement proceedings may need to be bought separately in the

UK and EU. UK trademark laws may develop independently over time and

diverged from EU trademark laws. The Court of Justice decisions will not

be binding but are likely to be persuasive. They finish by saying

there would be no obligation to implement the new trademarks

directive in line with the already enforce now community trademark

regulation. If breast -- if Brexit takes place before January 2000 and

19. The level and degree of uncertainty set out by that legal

opinion to show the need for proper analysis, for confidence to be built

in during negotiation and not waiting for the end result of when

we've left. It's because of the number of ways it was described.

There is clearly a considerable amount of uncertainty. We are

unlikely to be able to remain in the new European patents Court post

Brexit. The Government has not said whether we will implement the

trademarks directive. To help with the certainty that business needs,

perhaps the Minister could use this opportunity to confirm which IP

rights not on the statue books will be enshrined in UK law once we leave

the EU? Does he understand from the detailed analysis I read out just

how much of a concerned this is? Just how complex it is and how

business wants and needs that uncertainty to the good of business

and the wider economy. New clause one, review on the impact of

accident the European Union on provisions within this act. The

question is new clause one B read a second time. This new clause will

require the Secretary of State issue a report on impact of the

Government's transfer exiting the EU want the provisions within this bill

within 12 months of it coming into force. This bill does not take

forward any EU obligations. The IP unjustified threats provisions do

not derive from EU law, they are home-grown provisions which were

enacted in the 19th-century. The important protections provided by

this bill will not be changed by Brexit. Businesses pushed the

clarity and certainty about how they can contact others over IP disputes

and this bill delivers that. Our leaving the EU does not alter this.

Some IP rights are EU wide. The bill applies properly to those rights.

This ensures the threats regime is consistent across all relevant

rights that have effect in the UK. This bill does ensure our UK threats

regime will work appropriately with the proposed patent and unified

patent court when they come into effect. The honourable member asked

about the UPC following our exit from the EU. The options that the

UK's intellectual property regime including our relationship with the

unified patent core will be the subject of negotiation and it would

be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance. Our efforts

will be focused on seeking the best deal in negotiations with our

European partners and we won that deal to reflect the mature,

cooperative that close friends and allies enjoy. For as long as well

members of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full and active

role, making sure the IP regime continues to function properly for

EU wide rights. The UK's involvement in the EU, IP framework after Brexit

is not a matter for this deal but part of the exit negotiations which

have not yet begun. It is likely those negations will still be in

progress. Publishing the suggested report will be unnecessary and could

undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain in this

area. The honourable member asked about EU wide IP rights upon Brexit.

We are already talking to businesses and other stakeholders about this

important issue. There will be time to address it during negotiations

and we will want to see the best outcome and one that supports our

innovative businesses. He asked about EU trademarks and designs and

we recognise its users will want clarity over the long-term coverage

of those rights. We acknowledge the importance of involving users in

consideration of these issues. We're with stakeholders to gather views on

how to address their concerns. The honourable member asked about the EU

trademark reform package and the directive. On balance, we think the

trademark reform package is a good one with modernisations that will

make the overall system easier and cheaper offer businesses to use. We

are committed to getting the right deal for the UK and we will work

with Parliament to ensure a smooth and successful exit. This new clause

does not help us in any of this work. It is unnecessary and harmful

to the UK's interests and I as the honourable member to withdraw his

amendment. I'm glad the minister made the point about having

discussions with businesses already. That is incredibly important but I

do urge him to make clear publicly exactly what the nature of those

discussions are sooner rather than later. Businesses are exceedingly

worried about the consequences for intellectual property. The picking

up the points I made about the relationship between the EU patents

law and the UK, a great deal of reassurances needed. I think he

understands that. I don't agree with him that we would make life more

difficult by having this requirement on Government at all. This would be

a sensible move. I would be surprised and concerned if we didn't

seize the degree of reporting back during negotiations on these

matters. He has made a number of comments about the Government's view

in response to the points I've raised and I will withdraw the

amendment. Is your pleasure that new clause one B withdrawn? New clause

one by leave withdrawn. We now take amendment one with which it will be

convenient to debate the remaining amendments to and three. Amendments

one and three which are related with primary infringes, the names of

those who claim to do, amendment one addresses the concerns of the impact

on those who claim to make a product and the fraction to be taken against

them and the definition is in amendment three. We are dealing with

communication and threats and the essential parts of the bill. As the

bill stands, the onus is on a rights bill stands, the onus is on a rights

holder not to communicate with a party which claims to be a primary

infringer of rights. The example which springs to mind is of an own

label brand in the supermarket. I fracture he believes a product which

contravenes their rights may not and this bill can UK with the

supermarket. Alas, that is, they are confident there is no other way of

finding out who the manufacturer really is. The problem here is that

for smaller manufacturers wanting to challenge the bigger player, they

may not have the expertise or the access to expertise needed to comply

with the provisions of the Bill. They don't have the staff or the

time or money to engage legal services or to search for the true

identity of that manufacturer. A committee stage, the minister said

that devotion were taken against a rights holder, they would be able to

defend themselves in court. In legal terms, that is accurate the problem

is that smaller organisations lacked the resources to be able to do so.

The problem is a matter of imbalance and our court system favours those

who have the deepest pockets, the greater resources and it doesn't

mean smaller businesses. Will a small business risk winning or

losing in court? But they have the money to defend themselves against

an action or will they think it is worth defending themselves --

defending their property in the first place? I could've found out

who the primary infringer was and it could be tough choice as to whether

they believe the court will back them or not when they say in court

that they didn't realise they should not have been contacting the

apparent infringer. My question to the Minister is, if not through what

I am proposing and what my honourable friend proposed in

committee, then how does he propose to ensure there is a level playing

field between protecting the rights holder and preventing unjustified

threats, especially where the rights holder is the smaller party? How

does he propose to avoid small businesses being guaranteed the

ability to operate on a level playing field? To be fair to the

Minister, I should say I completely understand that is the purpose of

the bill as a whole. Thanks very much go to the Law Commission

network in delivering such an objective. The bill has in mind the

need to balance encouragement of innovative is, entrepreneurs and

investors against the need to ensure a fair market, prevent unfair and

exploitative competition. On this point about those who came to be the

manufacturer or the primary infringer, there appears to be a

degree of ongoing potential threat imbalance in legislation and the

Minister's answers in committee did not go far enough to guarantee its

smaller businesses will be protected. Move to amendment two,

this addresses some of the further concerns of small businesses who

lack resources for legal advice and again who may fall foul of the

narrow remit of the bill. In this case the amendment addresses the

problems where a rights holder challenge is not just the primary

infringement but secondary acts of infringement. A rights holder may

wish to prevent future infringement. This is about... They might want to

comment on related infringement of a similar nature. This is about

minimising the fallout from infringements where they are

inadvertent. Where a rights holder mention secondary infringements,

this amendment would not penalise such communication with a reference

about the future potential infringement or similar current

infringements. The chartered Institute of Payton and attorneys

raised the concern that future infringements were excluded as the

bill is now drafted to stop it seems reasonable to ask the infringer to

stop now and in the future and not to carry out similar infringements.

The amendment also deals with the concern for smaller businesses who

lack the resources or expertise to ensure all communications are

strictly compliant with the bill 's provisions as currently set out. I

agree with the Minister that rights holders should get their

communications right and that is a large part of the thrust of what the

bill is seeking to do. My concern with this amendment is that with

smaller businesses, the lack of access to expertise, of legal

expertise, could be a real problem on this point.

I'm afraid I didn't follow some of his counterarguments, that it would

make it harder for rights holders to approach the infringers with

confidence. Our intent is to do that, to increase confidence,

especially amongst smaller businesses, as they attempt to

protect their property. Again, if not through this amendment, the same

point for amendment on, then how? If the attorneys are wrong, in what way

are they wrong? If the languages of age, a point you make in committee,

why has this Department not suggested clearer language? With all

of the expertise we have here today, in fact, and in the Department, it

should be possible for the Minister to obtain the clarity of language

that would address the concerns we have been raising. I wonder, did he

ask for that kind of advice and the clarification and the language that

would have addressed these problems and provided that additional

assurance to smaller businesses and would have felt to alleviate some of

the concerns raised? I wonder, if he didn't, then why didn't he? The

question is that amendment on be made. Mr Joe Johnson. One of the key

purposes of this Bill is to signify an important but complex part of IP

law, making it more accessible and easy to use. One way it does this is

to set out a clear statement of those acts which are rights holder

can refer to in communication and will not trigger an unjustified

threats action. This encourages rights holders to communicate with

the trade source of an infringement. That would include those who import

protected items. It will make it allowable to... There are two key

points. First, and the reforms as they stand, a rights holder can

already can indicate with potential infringers at all times, including

those identified by amendments one and three. The Bill provides clear

guidance on how this can be done. The provisions therefore make it

easier for parties including SMEs to communicate and resolve issues

without the need for litigation. Second, it is perfectly allowable to

make a threat to anyone so long as that threat refers only to

manufacturing and importing or other primary acts. Someone making such a

threat would not be at risk of being sued even if the recipient was

falsely claiming to do those acts. For those reasons, as well as the

additional complexity introduced, I do not accept that the amendments

are appropriate. Moving on to amendment two, it is important that

issues of infringement can be raised early before the real commercial

damage is done. For this reason, the Bill as drafted allows threats to be

made in regards to future or intended acts of primary

infringement. And men that to does not add anything here. -- amendment

two. It refers to certain secondary acts working indicating with an

alleged infringer. When someone is manufacturing and allegedly

infringing product, the rights holder can discuss the retailing of

that product. Users want at this, it saves time and money, but it would

not be right to extend this further and allow threats to be made about

the stocking the product that they did not themselves make. This can

damage businesses who acquire products from legitimate

manufacturers. Finally, it is highly uncertain for businesses what would

be considered to be fundamentally similar acts of infringement, as set

out in the amendment. Litigation on the meaning would ensue. If it is to

capture similar products, this is not achieved. To conclude, these

amendments would introduce additional unwelcome complexity.

They would blur the line between who is protected from threats and who

can be safely approached. Rather than benefiting fights holders, this

could make getting legal advice more difficult and more costly. For these

reasons, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendments.

Thank you. We appear to have rehearsed more or less word for word

what happened in committee there. I am disappointed in the minister's

responses, because he does not appear to have picked up this

concern about the imbalance between large and small businesses, which

really is a fundamental element of what we think is missing from the

way the Bill is drafted. I would have liked greater clarity or I

would like greater clarity from him, but perhaps that will come as the

Bill is incremented. I would urge that the Government does consider

the impact on small businesses of what is going through here. The

point about own label, I think the point here is that once the rights

holder has found out, this is what the amendment was saying, that an

own label product is being made by the supermarket then such action

would have to cease or which would be covered by the legislation. That

was our intention. We have debated this at committee and again here. I

hope the points about the need to protect smaller businesses are well

made and I would be seeking to push these two about. I thank the

Minister for his responses. Is a job measure that amendment on

be withdrawn? Amendment on withdrawn. Consideration completed.

Third reading? Minister to move third reading? I beg to move. It

will now be read a third time. Intellectual property is essential

to supporting economic growth and a key part of our strategy. I'm

pleased that a small but important IP Bill will configure the passage

today. Businesses are best able to make use of the IP regime. In doing

so, it will deliver the Government was macro and fester commitment to

make the UK the best place in Europe to innovate new patent ideas and

expand a business. It brings clarity and consistency, making it easier

and cheaper to solve issues quickly and without litigation. It clearly

defines how information can be exchanged to resolve disputes over

IP infringement. It means legal advisers will be able to settle

disputes without becoming embroiled themselves. The reforms contained in

this Bill are widely supported by stakeholders, not least because of

careful research and consultation by the Law commission. I give thanks to

the Law commission and the Scottish Law commission for their hard work

and expertise in developing these reforms and for the support they

have given the Bill during its passage. I would like to highlight

the value of the special Parliamentary procedure used by this

Bill. It has been strengthened by the detailed scrutiny in the Other

Place afforded by the procedure. In this House, I'm grateful to

honourable members, especially those who served on the committee for the

interest and giving it to consideration. My thanks also go to

the hard-working Bill team and other intellectual property office workers

who have worked on it. They are part of the wider regime and provide

much-needed protection. These reforms will ensure these provisions

are fit for purpose and make a difference to our innovators,

designers and businesses. I commend the Bill to the House. The question

is that the Bill be now read the third time. Mr Bill

Esterson. They are exactly overall what is

needed to create that level playing field to create the support for

innovation and creativity. Those who develop ideas need to have their

ideas protected and supported, bringing together the different

elements of intellectual property legislation in the wake this Bill

has done. I think it is the right way to go. I've mentioned in the

report stage some of the figures and benefits and the fact the UK has one

of the finest IP systems in the world. We must do all in our power

to ensure that continues. It is one of the reasons why this country is

an attractive place for investment, it is one of the reasons we must be

optimistic about our future, in spite of the many challenges that we

currently face and the uncertainty, particularly around Brexit. There

are concerns that we have raised throughout this process. It is a

shame it was not more about alternative dispute resolution in

the Bill. It is, I think, the opportunity to tighten up the

support of smaller businesses, that would have been welcome, but it has

not happened. We need to reward innovation, we need to win ought

entrepreneurs. We need to balance that against a fair market, a

successful economy. The Minister mentioned the industrial strategy

green paper. It is very much critical to the success of an

industrial strategy that our intellectual property system

functions as well as possible. I hesitate to say I look forward to

the way this will develop during the Brexit negotiations, but we will

certainly need to work extremely hard to make sure that the success

of our IP system is three tamed. -- is retained during the negotiations.

The way that IP systems in the UK and across the European Union are so

closely linked. Advisers are a step forward, as well as the clarity

achieved by this Bill. We certainly supported the broad principles and

the overall aims and objectives that have been achieved. I add my thanks

to the Law commission and those who have worked on the Bill, those who

served on the Bill committee. I hope this will achieve what is intended

for it. The question is that the Bill be now read the third time. As

many of that opinion, say ayes. On the contrary, no. The ayes have it.

I must say, that is the most efficient Bill I have ever seen in

this House! I think that somebody somewhere ought to be commended for

it. We now come to the general debate on fuel poverty. I call the

Minister to move the motion. I'm delighted to move the motion and

open the first annual debate on fuel poverty. It is important because the

issue is so important. The fact remains that so many of our fellow

citizens and deciduous struggle to afford to keep their homes at

reasonable temperatures. There is a lot of more to do to meet the

demanding target we have quite rightly set ourselves as a country

for 2030. It is quite right that the Government of the day should be held

to regular account on what they are doing and encouraging others to do

in the face of this conflict and stubborn challenge. It is also

important because it is a chance for the Department to hear from MPs

across the nation. In our day-to-day, we as MPs, cross the

consequences of fuel poverty, not least in terms of the impact on our

constituents. Before we get into the discussion, I want to set out the

context. Over the past five years, government has taken action to

overhaul the framework to tackle fuel poverty in England. At long

last, we have a long-term strategic framework for action on fuel poverty

rooted in the 2015 fuel poverty strategy and the long-term strategy

target. This journey began in 2012 with the independent review if you

poverty led by Professor Sir John Hills. It found that fuel poverty is

a distinct issue, separate from income poverty. This debate links to

other areas of policy such as the action the Government is taking to

improve living standards such as the national Living Wage and increasing

the tax thresholds for the lowest pay. We need to make sure that the

energy market works for all. The meter tariff is a welcome first

step. As the energy minister indicated last week, a consumer

green paper will be out shortly. Today, I want to focus on the policy

framework which is specific to the issue of fuel poverty. It has been a

journey to this point. It started with the review, which reflected on

the previous activity at measures to tackle fuel poverty and highlighted

that while 10% indicator used at that time was well meaning, it was

fundamentally flawed. ensure that the poor have when we

saw the fuel poverty strategy. The strategy sets out the principles the

government would apply. It is important for there to be public

accountability, including the departmental body, the fuel advisory

group previously. I welcome the insight and challenge that the

chemist It is important to set out why we

have arrived at this point and also in light of the significant change

facing our country to reflect on the importance of giving the people of

Scotland a democratic choice over our future. As a result of the

Brexit vote, we know changes now inevitable. The question is what

kind of right for Scotland should that be decided for us or by us. In

the past two years, the Scottish Government has made a number of

proposals designed to protect Scotland from the impact of