Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

Yes. That links to others issues. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) is having issues with the car factory in his constituency, where 200 jobs are threatened. These issues are all linked. When the industry is under threat, or there is a potential threat, even if it is not actually visible, we must take steps to ensure it does not appear on the horizon. Our proposal would help that process.

For example, the west midlands has by far the largest number of motor vehicle manufacturing employees of any UK region or country. There are 54,000 employees in the industry working in the west midlands. That is about one third of all motor industry employees in Great Britain. We have to take into account the fact that if fewer companies offer optional remuneration arrangements, that could directly affect jobs in that region. The Government’s job is to plan and—they said this in their industrial strategy—to ensure we are prepared for all eventualities. Our proposal helps with that preparation.

The second-largest region for automotive manufacturing is the north-west, where my constituency is located. It employs 24,000 people and accounts for 7% of the total industry and 1% of all employment. I recognise that a slowdown in automotive sales could be related to a fall in the use of company cars and vans, and could cost workers their jobs. Members from Scotland, where the automotive industry accounts for around 4,000 jobs and 2% of the total UK manufacturing sector, and Members from Wales, where the automotive industry accounts for 9,000 jobs, feel the same. Similarly, any fall in the sale of rental cars and vans used in optional remuneration arrangements will have an impact on foreign direct investment into the UK, as there are now no British-owned mass car manufacturers operating in the United Kingdom. It comes back to the point made by an hon. Member about foreign direct investment. We do not want to put it off.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Given the sounds being made by the car makers Nissan over Brexit uncertainty, it would be a most foolish approach if those safeguards were not taken, and if there were no proper impact assessment or analysis of the industry.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. To some extent, that is part of the concern we have had about impact assessments and financial reviews on industry generally in relation to Brexit. This is part of the tapestry or mosaic of issues that we always have to keep to the fore if we are to protect jobs. All parties have said that they want Brexit for jobs and the economy. We have said it time after time, and this completely fits in with our policy of trying to protect jobs and our economy. Let us look to the future of how this might impact on an important part of our industry, rather than leaving it to chance.

The domestic automotive market is home to foreign volume car manufacturers, with other companies specialising in commercial or luxury brands, including Honda, which has almost doubled production at the Swindon plant—£240 million of investment into the Burnaston site was announced in March 2017. Jaguar Land Rover invested £400 million in a new engine plant, equipment and the expansion of its design centre in 2015. In October 2016, Nissan announced that it would produce two new models in Sunderland. Members on both sides of the Committee understand that uncertainty in an industry such as the automotive industry, which plans 10 or 15 years in advance, can be disastrous and cost jobs. We need only to look at the current uncertainty around Brexit, as I have indicated, to see that this is clearly the case. Large automotive companies express concern on a daily basis. My colleague the hon. Member for Oxford East receives regular representations from companies in her area who are deeply concerned about the future of the industry in the UK, and any fall in use of company cars will not add further confidence.

I accept that Government Members may accuse me of scaremongering, but figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs showed that 940,000 employers paid benefits in kind—tax on a company car—in 2016-17. That was a 2% fall on the 960,000 recorded the previous financial year. The decline is not isolated—the number of company cars has decreased over the last 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

The onus to know about such changes remains largely on the employer, who has a responsibility to sign off, but although some businesses will have calculated and worked with their employees to help them understand the financial implications of a company car or van where private use is allowed, explaining the option and consequences of making a capital contribution to obtain a better vehicle—

[Clive Lewis]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Dowd]

Yes.

[Clive Lewis]

As I sit here listening to my hon. Friend describe the obscure way in which this tax is being implemented, I wonder whether it would it be fair to call it a stealth tax.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One could argue that it is a stealth tax, although I think what the Government have introduced is more like an incompetence tax. I am not sure they know the consequences of what they have unleashed, but I suspect my hon. Friend’s use of the term “stealth tax” is pretty apposite.

We all know that employers will have invested in vehicles in good faith on the basis of those calculations, together with the comment from HMRC that that was the correct way to calculate charges. It is therefore to be expected that they will feel let down and perhaps even blindsided by these changes. The more I think about it, the more I think they will consider what the Government are introducing as a bit of a stealth tax.

The ICAEW found that, where vehicles with allowed private use are provided to employees under OpRAs, the clause will impose unexpected increases in tax and national insurance charges on employees and employers respectively. The only way to avoid those charges will be for the employer to dispose of the vehicle. That is likely to result in the employer receiving lower than expected proceeds if the vehicle is owned outright, or suffering financial penalties if the vehicle was acquired under an ongoing contract. It may also upset the employer-employee relationship, which might ultimately lead to both employee and employer leaving the scheme entirely.

That concern led the Opposition to table amendment 18, which we will press to a vote. The amendment seeks to insert the following subsection:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the availability and uptake of optional remuneration arrangements relating to cars and vans and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

In effect, it would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of these changes on the number of employees choosing to enter into optional remuneration arrangements. The amendment goes to the heart of the Opposition’s concern that the Government’s constant tinkering and fiddling deters people from taking up such schemes and, no doubt, other schemes.

That feeds into the wider criticism of the Treasury—and Ministers, I have to say—as backed up by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, regarding the constant need to rework and reform measures. The perception is that this is happening all the time. That takes us back to the point raised by the Scottish National party’s spokesperson about the need to tease out these issues in advance and put them into the domain. Let us tease them out and try to get a little bit of sense out of the mix. This amendment goes to the heart of our concerns, and this tinkering and fiddling about just confuses things more.

It is telling that the changes have come about not because of a new onus to reform optional remuneration schemes for the benefit of employees and employers, but rather to clean up the mistakes made in the previous Finance Act. In practical terms, that is what has happened. The Opposition have consistently called for the Government to take a more considered approach to taxation, including the introduction of Public Bill Committee witness sessions, as mentioned both previously and today. Were these concerns and those of the tax experts and advisers who have to implement the change taken seriously, Ministers would not have to come back to the House to redo their homework on every Finance Bill. This is my fourth Finance Bill—excluding the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill—and that seems to be a regular occurrence. Instead, Ministers should be able to get it right first time, not just in relation to consultation but in enabling us to help them do their job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

If the Government decided to listen to us and undertake such a review, they would have the ability to tease out—to use that phrase—to check, to put into the mix all these important issues. We do not claim to have absolute authority on how this should be done, which is why we think wider consultation and an extensive review are absolutely appropriate. We all want the £1 that someone gives to a charity to go to the charity, and not be siphoned off in some fashion.

What procedures does HMRC already have in place for instances in which a nominated beneficiary turns out not to be a registered charity, but the person who nominated it assumed that it was? It is an important question, and it surely presents ethical issues if someone chooses to donate their benefits on the basis of fraudulent information. That is not what we want. Clearly, in the event of their passing on that information, it would not be changeable. Does HMRC plan to apply tax in those circumstances?

This will be made all the more difficult by the Government’s repeated attacks on the Charity Commission, which has been attacked time and again. Six years of cuts have led it to repeatedly warn that its ability to properly regulate the charity sector is being limited. We must take that factor into account. As reported by Devex, the news website for the global development community:

“The commission has a staff of 290 and a budget of £21 million, and while budgets have declined, the number of charities it oversees has grown by around 5,000 since 2009. The charity income it regulates has jumped from £52 billion in 2010, to more than £74 billion in 2017.”

Former Charity Commission board chair William Shawcross wrote in a 2014 report that,

“our funding position remains unstable, a matter which has been recognised by many in the charitable world and which I have raised with Government. We cannot absorb unending cuts to our budget and may have to consider alternative sources of funding.”

What assessment has the Treasury made of the impact of this measure on the struggling, underfunded commission? I hope that this matter was discussed with the Chancellor when the clause was prepared. I do not expect so, but I hope that it was.

Finally, it is clear that the measure could represent yet another injection into some private schools that operate as charities under Charity Commission guidelines. That has been recently confirmed by the House of Commons Library, which stated:

“The Government has stated that there are about 1,300 independent schools which are registered as charities and that there is a great variation in size of school across the sector: There are approximately 2,300 independent schools in England, ranging in size from the very small…Many of them are very small…The fees range from £20k per year in a prestigious day school…to far smaller amounts…Similarly, quality varies from world-leading education to some small, poorly-resourced schools”.

What assessment has the Treasury made of the amount of tax that will be forgone owing to the nomination of those particular schools?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his scintillating speech, which is so full of detail and which I think everybody appreciates. Far be it from me to be a class warrior, but given yet another tax giveaway to the independent schools, which he mentioned, many Opposition Members would say that it is high time that those independent schools had their charitable tax status ended, and that omitting them from this measure would be a good start to that process.

[The Chair]

Order. The amendment is not about that.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

The current guidance on the GAAR published by HMRC makes it clear that corporation tax is under its purview. The question then is whether that principle can be strengthened or more regularly applied to prevent abuse of our own taxation rules. We must look at what the general anti-avoidance rule is itself, particularly the section on HMRC’s application of it, which is the scope of the amendment we have tabled. I will spare the Committee any more substantive detail on what that section refers to. I think people will—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Thank you for that.

[Peter Dowd]

People will thank me for it—I am sure that is the case—but I exhort people to read that detail, which will give them an insight into a way forward.

The question that a review would fundamentally seek to ask is whether the section of the GAAR that I referred to but will not quote from is strong enough in providing HMRC tax officials with the basis for pursuing corporation tax avoidance. The review would also look at its relationship to the other sections of the guidance in meeting that aim.

A related matter is whether the hollowing out of HMRC has had an impact on its effectiveness in preventing avoidance and evasion, and we cannot ignore that. My constituency, as you are well aware, Ms Dorries, is home to a significant number of HMRC staff, and they have been impacted, as everywhere has, by the Government’s hollowing out of HMRC. This matter should be considered as part of the review proposed by our amendment. The effective resourcing of HMRC needs to be reviewed as well.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

As a parent and as a citizen I am concerned, like the hon. Gentleman is, about the amount of gambling advertising on television and elsewhere, but that is not a matter for the Finance Bill; it is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and for the Gambling Commission.

As I have just described, new clause 12 would achieve only the Treasury producing a very limited analysis of the public health impact of the change in accounting period set out in the Finance Bill. I therefore urge the Committee not to press new clause 12.

New clause 13 proposes a report on the consultation undertaken on the detail of clause 61 on remote gaming duty and of schedule 18 on gaming duty. Although we have had much debate on the content and implications of clause 61, it is in fact very simple: it is a rate change, and the Government would not normally consult on such a change. I reassure the Committee that we have gone over and above the usual convention in such cases. The increase was originally proposed in May 2018, and my officials, alongside the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, have since worked with interested parties on its detail. We believe we are in a good position.

I fully reassure the Committee that the change made by clause 61 was consulted on last year. In addition, schedule 18 was published as a clause in the draft Finance Bill in July 2018. It has therefore been subject to scrutiny and comment by stakeholders ever since. I hope my comments will reassure the Committee that there is no need for a further report into our consultation on these issues, and I therefore ask that new clause 13 not be pressed.

New clause 16 returns to an issue with which I began this debate. The new clause asks for a review of the feasibility of bringing forward the rise in remote gaming duty in clause 61 to April 2019. As I have tried to reassure right hon. and hon. Members, we have already covered these matters—they were considered before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor tabled amendments 16 and 17, which will bring forward the date to April 2019—and I therefore respectfully ask that new clause 16 not be pressed.

I look forward to listening to the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members to this debate. The Government amendments to these clauses represent the action on FOBTs that the country demanded and for which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned assiduously over many years. The changes will now be delivered as expeditiously as possible and in a fiscally responsible manner that protects public services. I commend these changes to the Committee.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Well, where to begin? I can sum up the Minister’s speech as, “Nothing to see here.”

Before I move on to the detail of this issue, I want to pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House who forced the Government to bring forward the FOBT stake reduction from October 2019 to April 2019, which will be implemented through the amendment before the Committee. Particular recognition goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is to be warmly congratulated on her tireless work for social justice, in all its incarnations, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), the shadow Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber, but has spoken about this issue many times from the Dispatch Box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham P. Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. If the gambling industry was so concerned about employees, perhaps it ought to have given consideration to the number of single-staffed bookmakers that have arisen because of FOBTs. We are talking about young and vulnerable female staff working late at night in the bookmaking industry. It is too late for the industry to complain about the staff now when it did not care about them in the first place. Does he share that view?

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes his excellent point well, and I agree with it entirely.

Page 11 of that report describes what “at risk of closure” actually means. It means that once the £2 cap is implemented, just under half of those shops would make a net annual profit of £20,000 or less. Are we seriously to believe that a net profit of £20,000 a year is terminal? KPMG did not think so. The report concludes that these shops would not close, but would simply be “less profitable”. The threat was not to our constituents’ jobs, but to corporate profits. Can the Minister assure Members that the Treasury will never again seek to justify resisting evidence-based policy on the basis of secret reports and clandestine meetings?

By choosing to take such an approach, the Treasury ignored the recommendation in the May 2018 gambling review that the £2 limit should be adopted within nine to 12 months. Let us remember that that policy was designed to reduce the harm caused by gambling addiction. The evidence of harm associated with FOBTs is overwhelming, with that harm disproportionately felt by the poorest in our society. Put simply, there are twice as many betting shops in the poorest 55 boroughs of the UK as there are in the most affluent 115.

Even in narrow economic terms, viewing the delay as merely a reduction in tax income to the Exchequer makes little sense. As we have heard today, the social cost of addiction, crime and debt that accompanies the ever-increasing losses on FOBTs is estimated by the Centre for Economics and Business Research to cost the UK £1.5 billion a year. It has an impact on many aspects of social welfare, including employment, mental health and financial stability, so the awful human cost, about which we have heard so powerfully, is matched by an economic cost that we all bear as a society and as an economy as well. Perhaps the Minister would address whether the Government have factored into any of their fiscal calculations the prospect of alleviating the cost to public services, given a decline in gambling-related harm and crime?

Of course, the most important reason for an immediate stake reduction is a moral one—an issue of social justice that must be resolved. Lives are being destroyed, and this policy change is a milestone on our journey to tackle this harm. Labour Members are proud be part of taking that step forward, and we will keep striving to carry on making these changes until eventually we get to the bottom of what the gambling industry actually is: something that preys on people’s vulnerabilities. Labour Members recognise that quite clearly.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I want to summarise some of the issues relating to the amendments standing in my name and those of many others, including, most importantly, my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan)—they are hon. Friends in this case, although I am not sure they will want to be pursuing that one further. This genuinely was a very cross-party process. Interestingly, the list of names of Members who support the amendments tells us everything we need to know about the strength of feeling that existed in the House.

We accept the Government’s change, to which I shall come back in a moment, but it is worth reminding ourselves that this process has had a long gestation. I remember having conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) probably two years ago, at least—

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman’s synthetic anger, which I have been enjoying for the best part of 20 years, is always a spectacle worth observing. I thank him for another episode. If he really thinks that businesses look back fondly to the financial crisis, he needs to get out a bit more.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

In his Budget speech, the Chancellor failed to make one single mention of climate change, yet by scrapping enhanced capital allowances for small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have again cut vital support for energy efficiency and decarbonisation. Given the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate change report and given this Government’s support for fracking and their abysmal failure on tidal, onshore wind and solar, do the Conservatives realise that not only will they fail to meet their climate change targets, but they have breached their quota for hot air on this issue?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman might have been too busy preparing his question for today and in the process have missed the industrial energy efficiency fund that we have committed to introduce.

Summer Adjournment

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)

Some Members will have heard me speak before in the Chamber about the closure of the Britvic and Unilever factories in Norwich, corporate acts that will see hundreds of job losses and millions of pounds stripped and lost from the wider economy. If hon. Members are interested—and they obviously are because they are here—Colman’s was started in the early 1800s by Jeremiah Colman, and the mustard brand, as many will know, has become a household name across the country. When I was a young lad, we did not ask that someone pass the mustard; we asked that they pass the Colman’s. Some may still do.

In that time, Colman’s has also become an integral part of the very fabric of the city of Norwich. I remember being taken to the top of Norwich city castle and being shown by an historian and archaeologist the physical structure of the city. It expands in concentric circles: the closer to the castle, the older the buildings, and one can see, moving outwards, a whole swathe of housing built by the Colman family to house the Colman workers. This institution—it is an institution in Norwich—is not just part of the physical structure of Norwich; it is part of the very fabric of our city. The loss of money and jobs is part of the story, but the closure will have a real effect on the people of my city. Psychologically, it is a blow to the identity of Norwich, our history and our heritage. I am confident that we will recover—it is a resilient city—but none the less it is a blow.

As if that were not enough, I must now tell the House of the disgraceful way in which the workers and their trade union representatives have been disregarded by Unilever and especially Britvic. Some of these staff are third generation workers from families who have committed their entire working lives to a company that has now decided to leave the city, completely forgetting that they were the very people who helped to make the brand. When Britvic made the announcement about the Norwich closure, it stated that it was simply a proposal and that the final decision had not been made. It promised to run meaningful consultations and to listen to the issues raised, yet, just two days after the announcement, it started offering voluntary redundancies to members of staff. That is not the action of a company committed to meaningful consultation, and the consultation that followed was a total sham, with Britvic providing no real evidence for the closure and refusing to listen to alternatives put forward by workers that could have resulted in huge savings, kept the plant open and kept the workers in their jobs.

It was hardly a surprise when in December Britvic announced it would be moving its operations elsewhere. This was announced alongside a promise that it would treat the workers fairly and minimise the impact on the local community, which it did by offering workers the statutory minimum redundancy package. Seven months down the line and Britvic has shown absolute disdain for the community of workers that has united against this injustice, refusing to meet with union representatives and workers or to improve the redundancy package. As a result, the GMB trade union has been forced into an unprecedented situation where its only option is to strike. I stand in complete solidarity with these workers, who have planned 18 days of strikes over the next six weeks, and I think it a total disgrace that Britvic has shown no concern for the wellbeing of its employees.

Some people will shrug and say, “That is the way of the world.”. Others will say that there are plenty of other jobs for the sacked workers to go to, but the reality is that hundreds of workers in Norwich have been cast adrift by a Government and an economic system that has let all of us down again, a system that ignores the negative impact of de-industrialisation in cities outside London, a system where all that matters is how much and how quickly profits can be maximised, a system that legitimises Britvic in saying these closures are being made in the best interests of the business. Let us be clear: this decision was made in the best interests of the shareholders and executives who will receive huge profits when they sell off the Carrow Road site.

I applaud the valiant efforts of the unions, Norwich City Council, Norfolk County Council and the local enterprise partnership to find a viable solution and keep those jobs in Norwich, but I cannot say the same for the Government. When the issue came to a head at the end of last year, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) promised that they would do all that they could to save the jobs of those workers. Where is the evidence to show that they did anything of the sort? In fact, they have simply become part of a Government who have failed to understand the lessons of the past 35 years, which show that Government cannot be a spectator when it comes to industry.

The Government like to portray themselves as the party of business, but this is a prime example of how they have encouraged a system that works for the shareholders, not the workers. They have created a system whereby companies can pick and choose the members of a so-called “independent” consultation group, and a system whereby workers are only allowed reactive rights to challenge the authenticity of a consultation process after they have already lost their jobs. That is a disgrace.

I am devastated by the way in which the closures have been handled, and the disregard that the companies have shown for their workers and communities. I believe that we must review and overhaul the process by which we deal with site closures, closing the loopholes that help companies to flout the rules with little or no consequences once the gates are closed and production halted. When will the Government step up and create a safe and secure economic system that takes seriously the issues of de-industrialisation and unemployment in the most economically vulnerable towns and cities in the UK? It is not too late to intervene and ensure that these workers are listened to and treated with the respect that they deserve. The Government owe that to the workers at Britvic and Unilever, and they owe it to the city of Norwich.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

City.

[Paul Maynard]

I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon; as Blackpool is only a town, not a city, I assume everywhere else has to be a town as well. He spoke passionately on behalf of his constituents and we heard what he had to say about the actions of Unilever in the city of Norwich.

On the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), I am delighted to hear that I achieved something during my relatively brief phase as HS2 Minister. I am also glad to hear that there is plenty more for my successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), to engage in in the days and weeks to come. I heard with great sadness the story the hon. Lady told about young Sophie and I am sure the whole House passes on our thoughts to her family at what must be a very difficult time. My officials will make sure that the hon. Lady gets an answer to her question from the relevant Ministers about how the organ donation scheme might operate.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West was a masterclass in compression. I gather he raised 32 separate issues in seven minutes, which you, Mr Speaker, can only approve of: o si sic omnes—if only we could all achieve that, and I rather fear we might. He highlighted the rich fabric of community and voluntary activity in Southend, and again he plugged the case for Southend city status. I reiterate my two-for-one deal: if he backs Blackpool for that status, I will back Southend in turn, but I have heard only a deafening silence since our last recess debate.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) spoke with great passion. He reminded us of the significant benchmark for Louise Brown, a significant lady in the life of this country, and all that she represents. I particularly agreed with him about the unsuitability of using a Travelodge as a domestic violence refuge. I know the importance of the work that Fylde Coast Women’s Aid does, and the importance of refuges, and I am surprised that we still have to have recourse to using travel lodges for that purpose in this day and age.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) disappointed me: I was hoping to hear rather more about yoga, which I know he is a great proponent of. Given the many contortions that hon. Members have had to go through in recent weeks, and the odd positions that they have found themselves in, yoga would no doubt have been very helpful. It might well come in useful in the weeks to come. None the less, my hon. Friend spoke sensibly about the Equitable Life issue, and drew our attention to his personal role in developing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I know is so important.

The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) spoke on the issue of new homes, and I entirely agree with all the points they made. I have seen some horror stories myself, and I am sure that the Government will be inspired to action. I know that the hon. Members’ pressure will continue. There were many ideas, particularly from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that I am sure Ministers will want to take forward.

It was a delight to spend seven minutes in Gibraltar with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I have no doubt that Ministers are more than aware of their responsibilities with regard to the people of Gibraltar. They are a valiant people on their Rock, and I am sure that we would not wish to let them down in these difficult times.

In responding to the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), I shall avoid the temptation that many at this Dispatch Box often feel to criticise the Labour Government in Wales. I shall simply point out that there is always a great deal that we can learn from the devolved Administrations—even, just occasionally, the one in Edinburgh. I am never insensitive to what we can learn from Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke with great personal insight and demonstrated how we all bring immense personal experience to our proceedings in the Chamber. There should be no taboos in the House of Commons. We should all be able to speak about what we have learned from our own lives. We all have a unique insight, and we should always feel free to contribute in that way.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke with his usual force and passion on the issue of mental health and the personal independence payment. I very much recognise the points that he made. It is a case of constant improvement with the PIP; we have to make sure that it continually improves. I know that Ministers are particularly focused on that matter, and the hon. Gentleman was right to raise it. I was disappointed to hear about the comments from the councillor he mentioned. I have fought long and hard to ensure that disability hate crime is recognised for what it is, and he was right to encourage people to continue to report examples of it.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) spoke with her usual forthright trenchantness, if that is a word; I am not sure that it is. I hope that she will have welcomed the Home Secretary’s comments earlier today when he made his statement on the Shaw review. It is important to remember that anyone who is in detention, for whatever reason, is still a human being. They have a dignity that is unique to them as an individual.

The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) showed creativity in what they put forward for their local areas. I will make sure that the Arts Minister gets a bumper pack of things to think about over the summer.

My former MP, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—he is perhaps still my best former MP—again gave us proof of why he should always be listened to on issues of electrical and fire safety. His list of policy adjustments is not so much a Government achievement as his own, and it proves the Speaker’s adage, “Always persist.” He is certainly persistent on the things that matter most to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) demonstrated why he continues to be held in such high regard on both sides of the House. I am sure that he awaits our social care Green Paper with anticipation, as do I. I am also pleased that he joins me in welcoming the fact that Eritrea and Ethiopia are now getting on better. I saw a fascinating photo of the first flight from Asmara to Addis Ababa just the other day; that was good news.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) overlooked the key fact that I am not the Rail Minister any more. None the less, the shadow Rail Minister, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), is here to note his concerns, and I am sure that she will take them up. I could talk for half an hour about the CrossCountry franchise, but don’t worry—I won’t. However, my hon. Friend’s points about overcrowding were very well made.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) had the chance to visit more youth services in her constituency after what I am sure was her unintended oversight. She made an important point about the role of youth services in areas of greater deprivation, and I wholeheartedly agree with her on that. I also welcome the town deal that she mentioned, which gives me an idea to follow up in Blackpool, so I am grateful for that if nothing else.

I say to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that what she described does not sound like a consultation; it just sounds like, “We’re not interested.” I wish her luck with her ninth campaign, and I hope that it is her last, but I am cynical, as I suspect she is.

The hon. Member for York Central raised some important points about the distribution of public land in her constituency and had ideas for new parks. I happen to think that parks are one of this country’s urban treasures, and we should always do more to promote them. I wish her well in her campaign.

It may be the first year that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) has been in the Chamber, but I can certainly say that he has made his eloquent presence felt. I welcomed his recap of stuff that I recognised from business question after business question after business question. His fortitude does him great credit.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) demonstrates why APPGs do matter in this place. Her forensic approach and knowledgeable contribution show that the hours spent in dusty Committee Rooms are not ill-spent at all.

To the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I say that it should be 344, not 44. I hope that he goes on forever and ever and ever, amen. I am sure that he will.

I am so grateful that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) paid attention to my socks—so few do—but I hate to tell him that they are Australian, not Scottish. His allusions to “Game of Thrones” were wholly lost on me. I am a “Mad Men” fan, although I have only got to season four of that, so no spoilers, please. I am so busy being an MP that I do not have time to watch the latest television shows, but I am glad that he has the time to do so—only joking.

As we look to our summer recess, I note with some degree of trepidation that the Prime Minister is once again walking at high altitude. I hope she has a pleasant and relaxing break and no bright ideas. Just to be on the safe side, I am very much sticking to low-lying areas for any breaks that I may take.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your stewardship over the past year, your team of Deputy Speakers, the Clerks who keep us ticking over, the catering staff who keep us fed and, most importantly, watered, the Library staff who fertilise our brains, and the security staff who protect us from all anxieties. I wish all right hon. and hon. Members the most calm and peaceful summer recess, because I think we all need a bit of a lie down after the time we have had recently, don’t we just?

Draft International Tax Enforcement (Bermuda) Order 2017 Draft Double Taxation Relief and INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (KYRGYZSTAN) ORDER 2017

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 General Committees

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I welcome the opportunity to participate in scrutinising these two tax enforcement orders. Work that has contributed to ensuring that the UK overseas territories have adopted the common reporting standard a year earlier than other parts of the world is to be commended. It is vital that tax that is rightly due is paid and any avoidance promptly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. However, we should be cautious in assuming that tax treaties between wealthy and low-income nations are without problems.

We know that low-income countries rely more heavily on tax revenues than their rich counterparts, and the revenues can be assumed to be more urgently needed to provide public services such as health and education. Treaties have historically been one of the elements of the global tax system that have stood in the way of low-income countries collecting the tax revenue that is fair and just—undermining the ability of local companies to compete on a level playing field. It is therefore vital that we get this right.

With regard to the Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Kyrgyzstan) Order, I ask the Minister why the treaty does not include the provisions against tax treaty abuse that were agreed as minimum commitments by the UK and all states participating in the G20/OECD project on base erosion and profit shifting, also known as BEPS. Those anti-abuse provisions are included in the multilateral instrument on BEPS, and would be imported into a treaty if both parties to that treaty list it as a covered agreement. The proposed agreement with Kyrgyzstan was not listed as a covered agreement by the UK when it signed the MLI in June 2017, although the one with Lesotho, tabled a few weeks ago, was. Are the Government content to proceed with the treaty without ensuring that it contains the anti-abuse provisions accepted as a minimum commitment under the BEPS project?

In addition, why does the treaty not include a provision for the arbitration of disputes in article 24, while the recently considered treaty with Lesotho did include such a provision, despite the fact that developing countries have, through the UN committee of tax experts, opposed inclusion of such arbitration provisions in tax treaties? If the UK is willing to sign a treaty with a country such as Kyrgyzstan without an arbitration provision, why was it included in the Lesotho treaty? Why has there been a delay in bringing the treaty to the House? It appears that the treaty was signed in Bishkek in June last year. Why was it not considered here earlier? Is that a result of the greater than average scrutiny to which the Lesotho treaty was subject?

With regard to the International Tax Enforcement (Bermuda) Order, will the Minister tell us whether the Government have arrangements in place for the automatic exchange of tax information? I think the Minister did mention that, but if he could clarify it once more, that would be really helpful. Finally, the explanatory note to the order states:

“The 2017 Arrangement replaces the 2007 Arrangement and makes provision for automatic exchange of tax information, which was not provided for in the 2007 Arrangement.”

Paragraph 6 of the 2017 arrangement provides for automatic exchange. It states that that will be done under procedures to be determined “by mutual agreement.” The UK-Bermuda agreement of 2014 to improve tax compliance stated that

“the Parties are committed to promoting a new single global standard in the automatic exchange of tax information and will look to align this agreement to that new global standard in due course”.

Has that been done, and can the Minister provide details?

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon project which, as he knows, is under consideration by the Government. An announcement will be made in due course.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Contrary to the Treasury’s own assessment, a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research North recently found that transport investment in London is two and a half times higher per capita than in the north. We know that in Norwich Britvic is shedding hundreds of jobs, citing poor transport as a key cause. That inequality hurts business and local authority revenue, so what actions will Ministers take to redress this unjust imbalance? Will they commit to working with the Mayors of Manchester and Liverpool on the convention for the north that was announced this morning?

[Mr Hammond]

I just do not recognise or agree with the hon. Gentleman’s figures. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s analysis shows that infrastructure investment per capita in the north is actually higher than in the south-east.

Draft Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Enforcement) regulations 2018

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairship. We can all agree that childhood obesity is a health time bomb. It poses serious health issues now, but it will also create health issues for decades to come. It will blight millions of lives with poor health and it will impose huge financial costs on the health service.

The NHS estimates that type 2 diabetes consumes over 8% of the NHS budget, and that is certain to rise in the coming years. It is clear that serious preventive action to protect children and young people from excessively sweet drinks and the industries that promote them aggressively is not only medically sensible but makes financial sense. That is why Public Health England, the British Dental Health Foundation and the Royal College of General Practitioners are all in favour of the levy, and it is why we support it too.

However, it must be clear that this measure on its own simply cannot do the job being asked of it. I have mentioned some headline figures, but they do not capture the scale of what is coming. Type 2 diabetes used to be a disease of middle age. Nowadays diagnosis of the disease in people in their early 30s is commonplace, with teenagers also being diagnosed. That means millions of extra cases, many of which will mean potentially decades more healthcare per person on top of what we would normally expect. That is just one disease. I have not mentioned the increase in strokes, heart disease and cancer: all diseases that will generate decades of extra healthcare spending per patient.

That brings me to the ideological crux of the tax. What is it for? Is it a scrambled attempt to raise money to plug gaps in the education budget, or is it meant to reduce childhood obesity? The Minister mentioned £1 billion guaranteed funding for the Department for Education, and I welcome that, but where is that money coming from? I know that sometimes a magic money tree can be found, but we would like to know for sure where that money is coming from and whether it is ring-fenced and protected.

Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the HMRC’s capacity to enforce the levy, given that it has been widely documented that HMRC lacks the necessary resources and capacity to cope with its current workload, with even more cuts are on the horizon? Can he tell us how HMRC will monitor the effectiveness of its compliance strategy? Can the Minister tell us how the Treasury plans to plug the shortfall in the levy predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in relation to funding from the Department for Education for initiatives that he cited that support physical education, after-school activities and healthy eating?

Ultimately, this tax may make a dent or two in reducing childhood obesity, but we know that on its own it will fail in that role. The coming health consequences of obesity will be like a tsunami; this measure on its own is like putting a couple of extra life jackets on the Titanic. For it to have any meaning it must be part of a wider strategy. The Government are planning to cut real-terms spending on public health by 4% a year until 2020. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health reported last week that most local authorities have cut spending dedicated to promoting physical activity in children. They also criticised the Government for their failure to establish an overarching child health strategy. I know that the Minister mentioned it, but the royal college criticised it with regard to the integrated, holistic approach that would make strategic sense of the levy. The Opposition cannot yet see that plan in place. Finally, will the Minister make an assessment of the impact of the levy on childhood obesity, because many people argue that on its own it will make little or no impact at all?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the levy, which will play an important part in tackling childhood obesity. As I was at pains to stress in my opening speech, the levy is only one element of a much wider Government strategy. The Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the childhood obesity plan that was published. Nobody pretends that the soft drinks industry levy contains all the elements of that plan, but it is a significant element and, again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.

The levy is working, and we have seen that in the large number of suppliers of soft drinks that have already reformulated their products. As a result, the tax will raise less revenue than was previously expected. It was never designed as a tax-raiser; it was always designed to stimulate improvements in public health. In the autumn Budget of 2017, we laid out our expectation that the levy would raise around £275 million, yet the Treasury remains 100% committed to the original promise of over £1 billion of extra money for the Department for Education.

[Clive Lewis]

While we welcome the £1 billion—the extra funding—to plug those gaps, if the Government then cut 3.9% of spending on public health and, it is predicted, millions by 2020, does the Minister not concede that they are giving with one hand and taking with the other?

[Robert Jenrick]

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of our funding of the NHS, which has risen in every year of this Parliament. In the autumn Budget of 2017, the Chancellor committed to providing more money for both the NHS and adult social care.

The levy is an example of where the Government are taking action. We are using the tax code to change behaviours for the public benefit, and we are committed to significant increases in spending for school sports, breakfast clubs and all the other important things that will benefit from the funds coming from the levy. Every single penny raised by the levy will go to support school sports and the public health initiatives that I mentioned, plus the additional revenue that the Treasury committed to and is in no way backing down on, despite the success of the levy.

[Clive Lewis]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will press ahead on this occasion; I have given way to him in the past.

As for the capacity of HMRC, this is a task that HMRC is very used to and has expertise in. It uses that capacity for all forms of alcohol excise duties, such as those that apply to the spirits industry and so on. There is no reason to question whether HMRC can do this work. Indeed, the powers that we are considering today are those that HMRC has requested. The levy has been fully subject to a public consultation with the industry. HMRC’s voice has been heard in that consultation and we believe that HMRC will be effective in enforcing this levy and in ensuring that there is no criminality, or only minimal criminality, involved with it.

As for the question of whether or not we have reviewed, or will review, the impact of the levy, we have committed to such a review—in 2020, I think—so that will be the point at which we can clearly see the impact of the levy on both public health and the industry. With that, Sir Edward, I commend the regulations to the House.

[Clive Lewis]

I will just clarify matters on the issue of public health cuts and sum up very quickly. We support the levy, but there are caveats. One of the key things that I wanted to mention is public health cuts. The King’s Fund, the widely respected health think-tank, has said that

“too many local government services that affect the public’s health are facing death by a thousand cuts.”

The Local Government Association said in December:

“Cutting the public health budget is short sighted and will undermine the objectives we all share to improve the public's health and to keep the pressure off the NHS and adult social care. Further reductions to the public health budget reinforces the view that central government sees prevention services as nice-to-do but ultimately non-essential.”

How can the sugar levy make sense when many other measures that might help to reduce childhood obesity are being cut? That is something that we will continuously raise when it comes to this levy.

I will conclude by saying that my first priority today is the health and wellbeing of our children—I, too, am not here to defend the soft drinks industry—but in the absence of a thought-through strategy, it is hard to disagree with the British Soft Drinks Association in its response to the Budget in 2017 that

“it’s worth bearing in mind that there is no evidence taxing a single product or ingredient has reduced levels of obesity anywhere in the world.”

[The Chair]

I will put the question. As a matter of coincidence, I was at my dentist’s this morning and he showed me a rather horrifying film about the danger of sugar, so he will be very interested in our proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House is deeply concerned by the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland; notes that there are wider allegations of malpractice in financial services and related industries; believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds; further believes that a solution requires the collective and collaborative effort of regulators, Parliament and Government; and calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them, and the rapid establishment of a tribunal system to deal effectively with financial disputes involving SMEs.

May I echo your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker? As generous a soul as I am when it comes to interventions, I will limit the number I take to two or three, if at all possible, because I understand that Holocaust Memorial Day is also a crucial issue that everyone here would want to see debated fully afterwards. None the less, there are a lot of Members here, on both sides of the House, who want to speak about an issue that has deeply affected many of their constituents and small businesses across the country. I thank hon. Members for their support for this important debate, as well as the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time, particularly the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). He has made it clear to me and others that he was keen for the debate to take place, and here it is.

As the details of the various scandals that have hit our financial services sector trickled out over the last few years, I think we all started by treating the stories we heard with a certain scepticism. They just did not seem to make sense. Indeed, when I read letters from one of my constituents, my first reaction was to think that the story he was telling simply could not be true. “No bank could have dared to behave in such a brazenly outrageous way,” I said to myself. My constituent, Andi Gibbs, was forced by his bank, RBS, to buy an interest rate-hedging product, which should have protected his business against rising interest rates, but in fact drained it of cash. RBS then placed the business into its Global Restructuring Group. He lost his business, his home, his marriage and, I think it is fair to say, almost his sanity. His crime: nothing more than being an entrepreneur who banked with RBS.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the RBS Global Restructuring Group had real cultural problems? When its top tips included the advice,

“Rope: Sometimes you just have to let customers hang themselves”,

there is clearly something very wrong occurring.

[Clive Lewis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We know that 16,000 small businesses were put into GRG from 2008, and the vast majority were liquidated. That tells us all we need to know. This was meant to be somewhere from which they could try to come back as viable businesses, but far from being an intensive care unit, it was more like an abattoir, where they were stripped and taken apart.

[Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one reason why many Members found this story almost unbelievable—a story that affects so many of our constituents—was that the conditions of any settlements agreed by the GRG with businesses that were in trouble included gagging orders, or confidentiality agreements, which have prevented them from speaking openly about the plight that they have faced?

[Clive Lewis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, some businesses ended up in GRG simply for saying, “I’m not happy with my bank. I want to move.” When we talk about how they were “stressed”, we should also be aware that the bank used this term as it saw fit. Many businesses were treated appallingly, and the hon. Gentleman raises the point very clearly.

As time has gone on, we have discovered that Andi Gibbs is not alone. He is not even one of hundreds, but one of thousands. As many Members will be aware, the stories keep coming, backed up by evidence. It has now become clear that we have not just a series of individual scandals, but a full, systemic failure that needs to be addressed by this House. However, I want to focus briefly on what got us here and, more importantly, how we work toward a constructive solution.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my disgust that, four and half years after I referred, as Secretary of State, many of those cases—the Tomlinson report—to the Financial Conduct Authority, we still have only an interim report? Is he aware that the BBC has seen a copy of the final report? It contains the following incriminating phrase:

“Management knew or should have known that this was an intended and co-ordinated strategy and that the mistreatment of business customers was a result of that”,

and the head of GRG responsible for that policy, Mr Nathan Bostock, is now chief executive of Santander.

[Clive Lewis]

That is a very valid point. I hope we will hear from the Government today that there will be action on this issue. Owners of small and medium-sized businesses, including many of my constituents and those of other Members, are tired of the foot-dragging that has gone on for long enough. The Treasury Committee supports the report’s publication, and even the Financial Conduct Authority would probably conclude that it would be far more helpful for it to be published. Its publication is long overdue. People need to see the full extent and scale of what RBS and, potentially, other banks have been up to.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Clive Lewis]

I will give way one final time.

[Melanie Onn]

My hon. Friend said earlier that this situation affected failing businesses. My constituent Andrea Willows is in the public Gallery today. Her business was not failing, but the bank absolutely refused to provide any kind of funding for a shorter-term loan payoff, attributing it all to a larger loan pay-off instead. She had to come up with the full cost of multiple loans to pay off about £635,000, which made things completely impossible for her. That is exactly what these banks have done: they have made it impossible for hard-working people to continue to run their businesses although they were not in trouble in the first place.

[Clive Lewis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. During my time on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and as a Back-Bench MP before that, I heard many similar stories of companies that had been forcibly distressed, or had been described as being distressed by the bank and then carved up like a Sunday roast.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Clive Lewis]

I will continue.

As many Members will know, the stories keep coming, backed up by evidence. It is now clear that we are seeing not just a series of individual scandals, but a full, systemic failure that needs to be addressed by the House.

Let me now focus on how we can move forward. The APPG on fair business banking has identified a series of achievable and transformative objectives that will support our business community. My focus today, however, will be on dispute resolution, restitution, and the need for an independent financial services tribunal with the teeth that will enable it to tackle complex and, for the individuals involved, life-changing scenarios.

I want to touch briefly on the past, because it is important to separate the crises into two distinct phases. The first crisis, in 2007-08, was a crisis of liquidity. The second, which we are discussing today, is a conduct crisis that not only spans the financial services industry, but extends to the role of the professional advisers who are such an integral part of the system. They are Law of Property Act receivers, surveyors, accountants, insolvency practitioners and solicitors. They are all fundamental parts of this matrix, and I will return to them shortly.

The recent section 166 FCA report on RBS GRG concentrates on the years between 2008 and 2013, when banks were under extreme pressure to shore up their balance sheets. However, that behaviour did not spring up spontaneously. Senior banking insiders who worked in RBS between the mid-1990s and the crisis are clear that there was such a modus operandi in GRG for years before the liquidity crisis. Indeed, GRG and its predecessor, Specialist Lending Services, had been known as the “mortuary for businesses” since the late 1990s. During those heady days of liquidity, businesses might have had an opportunity to re-bank with competitors, but once the liquidity crisis hit, that was no longer an option Ever since then our business community has had to deal with the consequences, which have been ramped up to an industrial scale.

Although the title of the debate refers to RBS GRG, it is just a symptom of the underlying issues. In the course of the APPG’s work, it is hard to identify an institution that has not found itself at the centre of a conduct scandal, and I am sure that other Members will give many examples today. The APPG has come across similar instances among the major banking institutions. The HBOS Reading fraud, as a result of which bankers and their associates were jailed for a total of 47 years earlier this year, may seem easy to push aside as “a few bad apples”, but, in reality, it is a consequence of the same systemic failure.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Lewis]

I will make some progress first.

In the HBOS case, as with GRG, quite simply, everyone thought that they would not get caught, and so it escalated. We have to ask ourselves how it is possible that this has gone on for so long, completely unchecked. We should have caught it much sooner, but instead it has been left to a dedicated group of individual victims such as Paul and Nikki Turner—and to a relentless pursuit by journalists such as Andy Verity, Joe Lynam, Siobhan Kennedy, James Hurley, Jonathan Ford, Ruth Sunderland, Tom Warren, Ian Fraser and Heidi Blake, to name just a few—to keep the issue alive. That is the journalism that the British public need: journalism that investigates the acts of the powerful and holds them to account. It is the fourth estate playing its rightful role in a healthy, functioning democracy.

Even now, as we begin to get our heads around the issue, we are still not addressing it properly. Why? Because our response thus far has been piecemeal. We must take a step back, and look at the entire ecosystem in which such behaviour managed not just to survive, but to thrive.

Let me briefly remind the House of the possible scale of the scandal. At its peak, GRG held assets of more than £90 billion on its books—all the businesses that were put into special measures. We cannot know for sure how many of those businesses would have survived in another, more benign environment; that is a “how long is a piece of string” question. Indeed, some businesses were placed in GRG for no other reason than the fact that they had made a complaint against the bank. We have to ask ourselves how many of them should have been there in the first place.

Much has been made of the fact that the businesses were “distressed”, but that is a subjective and ambiguous term. We do know that 90% of GRG-administered businesses never made it back to mainstream banking. That is a very high proportion. The cost is immeasurable, but we believe it to be in the tens of billions. Let us be clear: that is the potential size of the injustice that has taken place in our country. If it is indeed that big, it may be the largest theft anywhere, ever. If we begin to take into account the opportunity costs to the economy of business failure and businesses that have been unable to grow—if we begin to include the loss of jobs, homes, health, relationships and taxes—we see that the costs are likely to be immeasurable.

Scandals on this scale cannot happen in a vacuum. The role of Law of Property Act receivers, solicitors, insolvency practitioners and surveyors must be considered. Even in circumstances in which every person playing a part has played to the letter of the law, the outcomes have been catastrophic. We have to ask ourselves how that is possible.

As things stand, a business owner understandably assumes that the whole system works effectively, and that when it fails, he or she will have access to justice. That is a logical assumption for those of us who believe that all aspects of our lives should be covered by the rule of law. Anything else is little better than the Wild West, and is no basis for the stable and successful economy that Members in all parts of the House want to see.

The House must tackle the inherent inequality of power in the relationship between businesses and their lenders. From the moment when a business signs a one-sided contract laden with onerous and ambiguous contractual terms, through its life cycle, and into—potentially—insolvency, there is nowhere independent and affordable for that business to go if it is in dispute with its lender. In all cases, businesses must rely on the limited scope of the financial ombudsman, various trade associations and individual institutions to handle complaints. What is the outcome? The public, and businesses, see a group of large, powerful institutions and trade bodies operating from behind castle walls, with no transparency or external accountability, save an expensive and prohibitive court process that is beyond all but the most well-resourced. Justice, for them, is out of reach, and RBS knows that.

When ad hoc redress schemes are set up to deal with scandals such as interest rate hedging products, GRG and HBOS Reading, they are wholly unsatisfactory and largely discredited. They appear to be a cynical exercise in limiting financial institutions’ liabilities rather than a genuine attempt at restitution. The fact that the entire exercise is conducted behind closed doors and the banks are allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner only fuels suspicion. The use of an “independent person”, whom the bank itself appoints, will never instil trust. It is akin to a burglar being allowed to pick the members of the jury for his trial.

To add insult to injury, in the cases of the interest rate hedging product scheme and the RBS GRG scheme, the fact that insolvency law allows the institutions to pay themselves back for their own misconduct brings the process into the realm of farce. It is a system that does not instil confidence. The best our institutions can say is, “Trust us, we’re doing the right thing; but if you don’t like it, sue us.” We have only to look at the content of the debate today to see that self-regulation alone is simply not enough.

I want to be clear: those of us who support this motion are not calling for extensive regulation. We are, however, calling for accountability, transparency and justice, because without proper transparent accountability there can be no trust. Ultimately, trust is what the financial sector depends upon; if we undermine and pollute it, it will never survive in the long run.

The cold fact is that right now in this country the trust that once existed has been shattered. This distrust has become so severe that it is affecting business confidence and productivity. The Government’s own industrial strategy cannot be delivered on these shaky foundations. Simply, if we are to move on, we need to get a handle on the issues and look at the whole ecosystem for our businesses. That is why today we are calling for an inquiry that cuts across departmental lines and looks at the protections afforded to businesses during their life cycle. That way we can map out a long-term plan to ensure sufficient safeguards to prevent such things from ever happening again. More urgently, we are calling for a tribunal system to be set up to deal with financial disputes, a system analogous to that which already exists for employment tribunals. That does not require any primary legislation. The legislation already exists to enable the rapid establishment of a tribunal; it just needs the political will to carry it through.

Andrew Bailey at the FCA has openly supported the tribunal idea, but we are concerned about the recent focus on extending the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service as this is not the right solution for what is a very complex problem. Once established, this tribunal system will help to ensure that banking works better, not just in the interests of its customers, but for the banking industry itself. This is important because we all acknowledge that the financial sector is critical to the UK’s future prosperity, and the relationship that SMEs have with their bank is a central part of that. In an effectively regulated economy, the relationships between SMEs and the finance sector should be symbiotic, not parasitic; each supports the sustainable growth and the success of the other. But that is not where we are.

It is time that the Government, the FCA and Parliament step up to the plate to ensure that businesses get fair treatment and access to affordable justice. Our businesses deserve nothing less. Our economy requires nothing less, especially at this critical time with Brexit approaching.

This matter has been left to drift in the regulatory and legislative wilderness for too long. The consequences have been catastrophic not only to individual lives but to confidence in our entire financial system. In the wake of Brexit, the introduction of a tribunal system will help to rebuild the strong relationships that once existed between SMEs and their banks, helping the growth of our economy and the international reputation of our financial sector.

It is, however, important to say that constructive progress has been made. The banking futures project brought together stakeholders across the spectrum to produce a coherent and ambitious plan for rebuilding trust. If Members have not read it, I would certainly suggest that they do so. The all-party group on fair business banking and finance has formed a working group, which will be formally announced in the near future, to discuss and look at this area. We should have no doubt that this is an important first step for businesses and industry, but it is just one part of the jigsaw, for with a problem this big, only a systematic, open-minded challenge to the status quo will work for businesses, our banks and our economy. This is an opportunity for us to show the business community and, indeed, the country that behind the lively exchanges that take place here and are seen on television, we as parliamentarians can put aside political point scoring and come together and work toward a common goal. I therefore commend this motion to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank all the hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House who have taken part in this passionate debate today, whether they are self-confessed capitalists, such as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), seeking to challenge crony capitalism or those such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) who are perhaps seeking more traditional socialist transitional demands. There has been almost unanimous support across the House for the motion. We want justice for our constituents and a banking system fit for the 21st century. In effect, we seek nothing less than the renewal of the broken social contract between banks and the public. Unfortunately, the language used in today’s debate has painted a picture of a social contract that lies in tatters. We have heard references to a web of deceit, a dash for cash, systemic abuse, parasitic relationships and asset stripping. Three words that we have heard repeatedly today are “enough is enough”.

I want to make a couple of comments about the Minister’s input. He said in his opening remarks that he and his Government would stop at nothing and spoke of the need for a fundamental culture change, but he then offered little except more warm words. I understand that he has been in his job for just seven days, but this situation has been going on for some time now and the issues are out there, a point which has been made clearly by Members across the House. The Government still seem to favour a solution involving the Financial Ombudsman Service, but even with some extension of its role, it is suitable only for low-level disputes. It has no powers of disclosure. It cannot enforce decisions. It has no teeth. It cannot adjudicate. It cannot deal with complex cases.

[John Glen]

I fully recognise the frustration that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but I also said that the Government rule nothing out. We will see what the proposals are and respond accordingly. I think that that is a reasonable position given the relationship between the Government and the FCA.

[Clive Lewis]

I acknowledge the Minister’s remarks, but time is not on the side of many people, so many of whom have been affected for so many years. I understand the Government’s reluctance to say anything today, but they must come to a conclusion quickly. From listening to Members from across the House, we understand that if we rebuild justice and confidence in our banking system, that would be good for business and good for banks and would maximise our country’s economic potential. I will conclude with the words of the late, great Errol Brown of Hot Chocolate fame—one of my favourites—because if we get this right,

“Everyone’s a winner, baby”.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House is deeply concerned by the treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland; notes that there are wider allegations of malpractice in financial services and related industries; believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds; further believes that a solution requires the collective and collaborative effort of regulators, Parliament and Government; and calls for an independent inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them, and the rapid establishment of a tribunal system to deal effectively with financial disputes involving SMEs.

Business of the House

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I know that the Leader of the House takes this matter immensely seriously, and I certainly did when I was a responding Minister. We have strict guidelines to which we expect Departments to adhere, and they are monitored carefully. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he chases up the replies that he has not received. We will make sure—as I am sure that the Leader of the House will do—that we always strive for continuous improvement.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister make time to debate the planned closure of the Unilever and Britvic plants in Norwich South? Local people want the Government and Ministers to take action. So far, we have a Business Secretary refusing to come to the city to meet the workers, a trade Minister who says that he does not want to be involved and another business Minister who says that he actively wants to see the plant close. Will the Government please pull their finger out?

[Paul Maynard]

I certainly heard the hon. Member’s point of order yesterday and I share and understand the concern that many Unilever employees feel about the current and growing uncertainty. The Government are certainly disappointed that Unilever has decided to close the Norwich plant. We welcome its commitment to maintaining most of the mint production in Norwich, and stand by ready to help the workforce wherever we can. This is a worrying time, and we need to work with Unilever to get further clarity over what is intended.