A move by Labour MPs to force the Isle of Man to have a public register of real company ownership has been defeated in the House of Commons.

The Manx government is committed to introducing a central register of beneficial ownership but has resisted demands to have that register publicly accessible.

Last week Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton Dr Rupa Huq tabled an amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill that would force the Crown Dependencies to establish a public register - like that in the UK.

But the new clause was defeated by 301 votes to 180.

Chief Minister Howard Quayle said he was disappointed that there were some in Westminster who were trying to force the island to have a public register.

He said a central register available only to law enforcement agencies and other tax authorities was the international standard.

’People cannot hide and avoid tax with our beneficial ownership register,’ he added. ’But we genuinely feel people should not have to declare everything they own.’

Dr Huq told the Commons: ’The Isle of Man managed to rack up 8,000 entries in the Panama papers and is being singled out by the Canadian revenue authorities for investigation. Let us not forget that in October 2015, HMRC defeated the Isle of Man on a tax avoidance scheme that took place from 2001 to 2008 and left a hole in our finances of £200m.’

But Tory MPs said it would be wrong for Westminster to legislate for the Crown Dependencies. Cities of London and Westminster MP Mark Field pointed out: ’The Crown Dependencies are in a different legal and constitutional position. It would be entirely wrong for the government to railroad them.’

The SNP’s Richard Arkless: ’It is part of my political definition that I do not want this place to legislate on places or jurisdictions where it does not have authority.’

Minister of Security Ben Wallace said it was still the Westminster government’s ambition to have public registers of beneficial ownership in the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

But he said: ’The Labour party’s new clause 17 is probably constitutionally bankrupt. It would certainly cause all sorts of problems, although I am not sure that we can actually impose our will on a Crown Dependency like that.’