Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
House of Commons · General Committees · 1 Jul 2026 · 32 speeches · Official Report
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: † Clive Efford
† Butler, Dawn (Brent East) (Lab)
Coleman, Ben (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Cooper, Daisy (St Albans) (LD)
† Davies, Gareth (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
† Fortune, Peter (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
† Gilbert, Tracy (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Haigh, Louise (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
† Hinchliff, Chris (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
† Hughes, Claire ( Bangor Aberconwy )
† Irons, Natasha (Croydon East) (Lab)
† Jones, Gerald (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
† Lewin, Andrew (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
† MacNae, Andy (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
† McDougall, Blair (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade)
† Paul, Rebecca (Reigate) (Con)
† Reynolds, Mr Joshua (Maidenhead) (LD)
† Wright, Sir Jeremy (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
Jonathan Finlay, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 1 July 2026
[Clive Efford in the Chair ]
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. These regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 1 June 2026, make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the transparency and operation of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE or the register from here. They also correct a separate technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. Hon. Members will be aware that the ROE was introduced in 2022 as part of the Government’s efforts to increase transparency in land ownership and combat economic crime. It is a public register maintained by Companies House that requires overseas entities that own or acquire land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers. The register plays an important role in shedding light on complex ownership structures and in supporting action against illicit activity. Information on the register has been used by law enforcement, journalists and other parties examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals. Appropriate safeguards are in place through a protection regime that includes the ability to apply to Companies House to have a home address removed from the register. As part of the application, individuals are required to provide supporting...
I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?
Yes, I will come on to that. The hon. Gentleman will hopefully find reassurance shortly that that information will still be gathered. Part 2 of these regulations streamlines the application process; applicants will no longer be required to provide supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address that appears on the public ROE. This removes an unnecessary administrative burden for applicants. The regulations also introduce a requirement for applicants to provide a replacement service address to be displayed on the public register, except in very limited circumstances. Taken together, these changes bring the ROE protection regime more closely in line with the approach taken with UK companies. Part 3 of the regulations includes changes to the ROE’s trust disclosure service, which enables members of the public to apply to Companies House to access unpublished trust information held on the register. Under the current application process, individuals must provide their own details, as well as the overseas entity’s name and ID number. These details relating to the entity are publicly available on the register. However, applicants must also provide the name of the trust that they are requesting information on. The name of the trust is not publicly available on the register, and many applicants are therefore unlikely to have this information, which leads to rejected applications. In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age...
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee and to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford, and of course to see the Minister. I refer Committee members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my prior career in asset management, which involves some of the structures we are debating today. I thank the Minister for providing such a thorough and clear explanation of the Government’s intentions with the regulations before us today. Whenever we debate regulations, we should always remember that it is essentially a balancing act-in this case between privacy in business and ensuring fairness, governance and transparency. Those aims are not mutually exclusive. It is our job to ensure that we get that balance right as often as we can. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he said that the regulations remove the requirement to provide trust names for applications looking to access unpublished information through the trust disclosure service. Paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum states that that is because many applicants have been found “unlikely to have this information”, resulting in their request being rejected. The Minister said that just moments ago. Can he therefore tell us how many applications have been made to the trust disclosure service since it was launched in August 2025? How many were rejected for that reason? That would help us understand the basis for the regulatory changes today. By lowering the bar for applications and...
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Tackling economic crime and financial secrecy is vital for our economic and national security. The registration of overseas entities is an important step in improving ownership transparency, and we welcome any measures that make it work better in practice. However, I note with concern the temporary removal of the LLP address reporting requirements. The Government have stated that the reason is that Companies House systems are not yet equipped to receive and process that information, but that raises broader questions about pace and resourcing in Companies House more generally. We have known for a significant period of time that it has been underperforming, under-resourced and not doing what it should be in the appropriate manner. Having some transparency and clarity from the Minister would be beneficial. The Government must set out a clear and binding timetable for when the LLP reporting requirements will be reinstated, and ensure that Companies House receives the investment that it needs to deliver the reforms that Parliament has already passed. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.
I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters. Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency. Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise-not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place-that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that. On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret...
Committee rose.