Manufacturing Post Brexit

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord obviously wrote his question before I gave the earlier answer, because the figures that I quoted on increased manufacturing investment—more than half of manufacturers plan to increase investment in people and industry—were from Make UK, so the noble Lord is painting an unnecessarily gloomy picture.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me, in respect of manufacturing post Brexit, that R&D is a very important part of manufacturing growth? The ONS revised statistics show that research and development in the UK was £33 billion just before Brexit; last year, it was £42 billion. This is in part thanks to the Government’s R&D tax credits of £6.7 billion last year. Will BEIS encourage the Treasury to ensure that the scheme to combine SME and larger companies’ R&D will not prejudice SME companies in claiming the invaluable R&D tax credits they need?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point, and I know that he is very expert in this area. The Government are taking steps to increase our international competitiveness, by increasing the research and development expenditure credit from 13% to 20%; we will increase our economic competitiveness in that way. As part of the ongoing R&D tax relief review, I know that the Treasury is looking at this issue carefully.

Business: Greenwashing

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

That is a fascinating question, although I am not sure that what it has to do with the subject under discussion. However, it is a very real issue and certainly something that we need to keep under close examination, because we do not want productive land taken out of use.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Will my noble friend be able to give, now or later, an estimate of the cost of ESG reporting to British companies? The reason I ask is that an SEC commissioner recently stated that the cost to the 4,600 companies it regulates of providing ESG reporting is currently at $2 billion and expected to rise to $8 billion with the new regulations.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I know that my noble friend is very interested in this important subject; we have discussed it before. The problem we have is that many businesses make environmental claims about their sustainability and that others publish information in their annual reports—often voluntarily; there is, in some respects, no legal obligation to do so—so the question is about how investors can get transferability across different companies and compare one company against another. There may be a case for some standardisation and regulations in this space, but of course we need to look at the business impacts.

Four-Day Working Week

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Of course, we have regular discussions with Ministers in the devolved Administrations: in fact, I spoke to one only on Friday. So, yes, of course we will learn any lessons that other countries can show us—but, as I said, there are no easy answers to this. It is a complicated area and can work in one sector but not in others.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Question talks specifically about four days a week, not about working from home. Bizarrely, this may have the effect of increasing productivity, only because productivity in this country is measured as output per hour. So, when the Government consider the devastating effect a four-day week would have, can the definition of “productivity” be refined to take account of the fact that it is total GDP we are interested in, not output per hour?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Again, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Of course, there are many different ways of defining it. He is right to point out that productivity is the key to this. If there is evidence that people will work smarter and harder during the time they are at work, of course that would be a good thing and it would help to bring it about.

Trade Talks with India, Greenland and Israel

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent upon all of us to do everything we can to promote trade with all countries, particularly the three countries listed in the Question? Therefore, does he hope, as I do, that the whole House condemns the approach taken by certain local authority pension funds in imposing boycotts, divestment and sanctions on just one country: Israel?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House recognises that trade is one of the surest ways to economic advancement for a whole range of countries. The UK is strongly committed to our trade and investment relationship with Israel, one of the Middle East’s most dynamic and innovative economies.

Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I rise to support Amendment 8, to which I have added my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for doing the hard work on the drafting. It is much appreciated. I am happy to support the amendment.

First, I disclose my interests as set out in the register, not least that I am a shareholder and chairman of Manolete Partners plc, which is an AIM-listed insolvency litigation firm. It does not exactly touch the Bill, but it is worth drawing your Lordships’ attention to it. Over many years, I have been a director of a large number of companies and other relevant organisations, one or two of which have become dormant and subsequently been dissolved—although, I hasten to add, with no loss of anyone else’s money.

I, too, thank R3 for its briefing and its perennial helpful guidance and advice. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading. As this Committee now knows, that was due to a last-minute change of date; I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

The Bill is sorely needed, and the Government’s proposals in respect of dissolved companies are very welcome. However, there has been much debate on the effectiveness of the measures proposed in Clause 2(6), which is what we are here to discuss this afternoon. I note that there was much debate on this subject in the other place. At that point, proposals were put down for new clauses that are broadly in line with this amendment, which is slightly different in its purpose from the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake.

I think we all agree that the route proposed in the Bill is better than a criminal sanction because there is a lower burden of proof. On resources, which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, it is difficult to know what the numbers might be. It is worth noting that there are some 500,000 company dissolutions a year in the UK, of which some 5,000 might need investigation by the Insolvency Service. That figure of 5,000 has been out there for some time. The reason it has been quoted is that it is the number of companies that have been struck off and where a process has been started to put them back on the register, so we know that there are at least 5,000 companies a year that have gone back on the register. To do that costs a few thousand pounds, so many people are deterred from bothering to go to court to get companies put back on the register, with all that entails. There might in fact be many more cases worthy of investigation under the proposed new, simpler system, which we all welcome. This will be a big increase from the 1,200 cases a year, I think, that are currently investigated, hence the concern that this clause seeks to address.

In the other place, the Minister, Luke Hall, is not a BEIS Minister. That goes back to the poignant points made by my noble friend Lord Cormack that a hybrid Bill sometimes suffers from one Minister addressing parts of the Bill that do not centre on his or her expertise. We are extremely fortunate to be blessed with the great knowledge and experience of the BEIS Minister in front of us this afternoon. Mr Hall assured the other place in Committee that the Insolvency Service produces reports on its own activities, which is correct. However, these amendments would ensure that specific questions we would want answered are addressed in those reports, and with a degree of independence. I am not sure that a report by the Insolvency Service would be able to determine the points we made, as it is bound to be accused of a conflict of interest in opining on whether sufficient powers and resources are available to it. It would be nice to see an independent report laid before Parliament.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the acid point we really need to be told is how much money is recovered from directors through this route for creditors other than HM Government. We would all be delighted to see them, through HMRC or any other agency, recoup all the proceeds they are owed, but will the Secretary of State continue to look with quite the same zeal as we know he or she will for government money when it comes to acting for other creditors? Perhaps the Minister will be able to set out—this afternoon or later—exactly how the Government intend to prosecute culpable directors and recoup the funds.

The Minister mentioned compensation orders as the route to recoup funds but, as I understand it, compensation orders can be used to benefit only one creditor, so can the Minister comment on how they will be widened to benefit other creditors? In addition to explaining how the compensation orders will be used, will the Minister set out whether dissolved companies with culpable directors will then be put through an insolvency process?

I hope this might be addressed on Report and a commitment made to look at how Companies House operates—particularly to consider some of the ideas raised during the passage of this Bill, such as not letting Companies House strike off a company until the Insolvency Service has had a good opportunity to look at the exact circumstances of it being struck off.

Finally—and I hope the Minister will allow me to raise this matter in this debate—I wonder whether he feels moved to comment at some point in Committee or later on some of the interesting issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, at Second Reading. They were not addressed in our previous sitting, and I think there should be some opportunity, at the very least for a right of reply for the insolvency profession and others on some of the very serious accusations made at Second Reading. It would also be helpful if the Government could commit to set out their view on the insolvency profession and its regulation at some point.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to what was a good short debate on Amendments 4, 5 and 8. I completely agree that it is very important that we closely monitor the effectiveness of the new legislation and make sure that our departments are adequately resourced to do the work asked of them.

I start with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on the reporting of enforcement outcomes. I hope that she will be reassured to hear that there is a wealth of insolvency enforcement statistics. They are published regularly by the Insolvency Service and are readily available on this internet thing.

The published data includes figures for company insolvencies across the UK and personal insolvencies in England and Wales, as well as some of the data behind those figures, which the noble Baroness might be interested in, such as regional variations. Those statistical releases are made every three months, but, since the Covid pandemic started, experimental releases of monthly data concerning numbers of insolvencies have been provisionally added by the Insolvency Service. This additional information has been extremely valuable as an indicator of the impact of Covid on insolvencies. From my point of view, the number has been lower than I expected, which is good news.

Specifically regarding the Insolvency Service’s enforcement activities, information on numbers of disqualification orders is published and updated monthly. Those figures include the number of companies that are wound up in the public interest and a breakdown of disqualification orders and undertakings obtained under the relevant section of the Company Directors Disqualification Act under which they were sought. Those monthly figures also include lengths of periods of disqualification and, furthermore, there is an annual report on the nature of misconduct in disqualification allegations.

Perhaps the noble Baroness could have a look at all that published information and check that it is adequate for her requirements. I hope that this reassures her that, when she does the online search, she will find all the information she requires. There is a copious amount of excellent, helpful data. If the Bill is subsequently passed, future reports will include disqualification numbers made against former directors of dissolved companies.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made the very good point that it is important to see evidence of returns to creditors, but I make the important distinction that the disqualification mechanism is for deterring misconduct and protecting the public. It is not, in fact, intended primarily to be a method of recovering funds to creditors. However, he will be pleased to hear that compensation orders can be issued in respect of disqualified directors, who may be required to make good financially on the damage that they have caused, which I suspect is the outcome that we all looking for.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked a good question about the numbers of additional staff. I assure them both that the point I made earlier applies: resources are not limitless, the Insolvency Service already has a team set up for this precise purpose, and a complaints portal is waiting to go live, although of course we will not activate it until the Bill is passed and given Royal Assent.

My noble friend Lord Leigh asked about the number of cases that have been referred to. If I may respectfully correct him, the number of cases investigated that he cited was actually the number of successful disqualifications. There will be many more cases investigated where it will have been determined that there was no public interest in proceeding. That is a difficult judgment that officials in the Insolvency Service and, ultimately, the Secretary of State will take.

My noble friend also asked about the regulation of insolvency practitioners. As I think he is aware, we are reviewing the regulatory framework that governs them to ensure that the best possible outcomes are achieved for creditors. He will be delighted to hear that we will publish the proposed reforms to the insolvency profession shortly, which I hope will go some way to assuaging his concerns.

I move on to the figures that we will publish and the impact assessment in terms of a post-disqualification review. Did the noble Lord want to intervene?

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Committee approve the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before the House on 21 June 2021.

The emergence of the Covid-19 virus has posed the greatest threat to our way of life in a generation, and the past 18 months have been a challenge for us all, both as a nation and as individuals. The essential restrictions placed on our day-to-day activity have saved lives and limited the spread of the virus, but they have of course placed unprecedented pressures on many businesses. I am sure all noble Lords will share my optimism that the early signs of a strong recovery signal a return to normality. However, many businesses are not out of the woods just yet.

The four-step road map offered a road back to normal life while our world-class vaccination programme was successfully rolled out. Each step of the road map was implemented to safely reintroduce social contact for businesses, schools, activities and events based on the contemporaneous data. Step 4 was successfully launched on 19 July and led to the removal of all legal limits on social contact and the reopening of many premises. I am delighted to report that as of today, 6 September, more than 60% of the UK population are now fully vaccinated, and 71% have received their first dose.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have put in place an economic support package totalling £352 billion through the furlough scheme and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, support for businesses through grants and loans, and business rates and VAT relief. In March, during the Budget speech, the Chancellor announced a generous extension of economic support for businesses and individuals, with many schemes continuing well beyond the end of the road map to help businesses to bounce back. The Government continue to support businesses by once again extending this key protection to prevent companies being forced into liquidation where their debts are due to the effects of the virus.

It has been widely reported that although many businesses are now open and trading they have continued to feel the effects of the periods of shut-down and limited trading over many months, and it will take some time for them to get back to normal financial health. This instrument will help companies while they get back to more normal activity by extending to 30 September 2021 a measure first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020: specifically, the temporary suspension on issuing statutory demands and the restrictions on company winding-up petitions.

This measure has been extended several times by regulations, most recently from the end of March to 30 June, and this instrument seeks to extend it a further time, giving businesses the chance to trade free from creditor action to liquidate them for debts that arose because of the unique situation that many businesses have been in. This extension will allow them to sort out any financial difficulties that have arisen during the enforced restrictions over the last year or so, while the economy gets back to normal.

Since its introduction in June last year, the measure has protected many viable companies from aggressive creditor enforcement action during really difficult trading times. The temporary restriction on company winding-up petitions means that anyone who wishes to wind up a company that has not paid its debts must satisfy a court that those debts are not Covid-19 related. This extension aims to give many companies much-needed time to get back on their feet as the economy begins to return to normal: time for them to generate income, take advice, reach out to their creditors and, where appropriate, time to restructure.

The Government have helped companies while they had to stay shut, and, now that they are able to open, it is crucial that we do not withdraw that help prematurely before they are given the chance to trade back to financial health. Although this measure is intended to help companies that may be subject to aggressive creditor enforcement, the Government have always been clear that it is not to be seen as a payment holiday. Where companies can pay their debts, they should do so.

I know that many businesses and their business representatives will welcome the continued support that these regulations offer, but of course I also acknowledge that this measure will mean a further period of uncertainty for creditors where their rights to enforce recovery of their debts are temporarily restricted. We do not take this action lightly, and we are very aware of the impact on creditors. However, as I have said, the measure is intended to help those in financial difficulty as a result of the pandemic and must not be used as an excuse to avoid payment. So where a company can pay its debts, of course it is right that it should do so.

We will continue to monitor the situation carefully, consulting with stakeholders and the business community to determine what further action may be necessary when these regulations expire at the end of this month. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. Since we last debated this subject, I have become a non-executive director and chairman-designate of Manolete Partners plc, an AIM-listed company involved in insolvency litigation. Therefore, I have a vested interest in addition to my other business interests.

I again congratulate the Government on the swift and decisive action taken with the introduction of this legislation in responding to the economic crisis. We did not agree on every aspect of the legislation, particularly some details of the moratorium, but we did agree on the direction of travel and the effect that all this has had. This debate is of course in respect of regulations which, as I understand it, expire at the end of this month, so although necessary, because of the way the regulations are drafted, it is probably the shortest-term effect of any regulation that has gone through this House.

More important is to know and understand what will happen after the end of this month. A number of us would argue that the time has come to relax these regulations and to rely on the market in which this Government have such faith. The market will determine which companies should have more capital allocated to them, which companies are zombie companies and which companies do not have a future. That will be decided partly by creditors and partly by people choosing whether to invest in companies that need such cash to face creditors.

It is interesting to look at the situation regarding creditors’ voluntary liquidation. Creditors’ voluntary liquidation is essentially when directors decide to throw in the towel because the business cannot carry on of its own volition. The figures published by the excellent Insolvency Service just the other day show that the level has returned to pre-pandemic levels, about 2,800 companies in the last quarter, which is roughly where it was pre-pandemic and is constant. So the market is returning to normal where it can. I very much hope that the Minister can give us an indication soon of the Government’s thinking on this extremely important issue.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, there are many industries that are still not fully on a path to recovery, good examples being hospitality and events management. If we are thinking about terminating this legislation at some stage, surely before we do that the Government will have to present us with some evidence of what the impact of the cliff edge will be on those and other industries.

Clearly a cliff edge is looming, although the can continues to be kicked down the road. What will happen when suddenly, as has been said, you let the market forces rip? What will be the effect of this legislation upon creditors who would perhaps have expected to have some recovery but who now must wait to recover? Clearly there is a knock-on effect, but the Government have not really presented any estimate of that. When the cliff edge comes, what restraints will be exercised by banks, private equity, hedge funds and other secured creditors, or will they all simply be rushing to collect their resources, collect their money, and put businesses into liquidation? That will clearly have a huge negative effect.

The Government need to present us with a plan. What exactly is the value of the debts that are affected? How many businesses? How many creditors? We have heard absolutely no information from the Government. When market forces are allowed to rip, what exactly would be the constraints on the insolvency practitioners who charge mega sums for insolvency fees that actually worsen the crisis? The BHS liquidation began in 2016 and is still not finished. Carillion began in 2018 and is still going. Thomas Cook is still going. Maplin is still going. Monarch Airlines and many others have been going for decades and decades. There seems to be absolutely no check. If the Government are really planning ahead, they need to present a plan about how they are going to constrain the insolvency industry. We have not really heard anything about that. I have asked in PQs for information about the values that unsecured creditors may lose. I am told that the Government have no figures. Again, I ask: what is the Government’s plan to deal with the cliff edge ahead?

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, clearly we are at a critical time for UK businesses. It is widely recognised that businesses face enormous liquidity issues when an economy comes out of a downturn as much as when the downturn starts. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, which include investments in all sorts of companies—I think they are all solvent, but one never knows.

As of now, as my noble friend eloquently explained, the effects of the downturn have been cushioned by the somewhat heroic efforts of the Chancellor, and the teams at the Treasury and BEIS, in providing a cushion for so many businesses in different ways, from loans to grants, rates relief and furlough, and, as my noble friend explained just now, measures that were set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which we debated in this House a short while ago. It was a great achievement and showed the Government being fleet of foot at their best.

There is no question that we are coming through the difficult times to some sort of normality, and even possibly a mini boom, so the question is whether we need all the measures in the Act to be extended. I plan to ask my noble friend broadly the same question as my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked: why are the measures not coterminous? Perhaps he can explain what has happened in the interregnum for those measures which expired on 31 March.

I have been studying some commentary and research from the turnaround specialist group R3. When the previous extension was under consideration it said:

“The Chancellor’s decision to temporarily extend his COVID insolvency measures, coupled with the other aspects of the support package announced today, will be welcome news to many businesses across the country … The insolvency and restructuring profession will also welcome the extension of the temporary relaxation of entry requirements for the new moratorium procedure. This measure could enable more businesses to access this important tool over the coming months, and help to facilitate the rescue of otherwise-viable businesses.”


It added:

“However, while the Chancellor’s announcement will make a real difference in the coming months, these measures can’t be prolonged indefinitely, and the Government will face a number of questions when this extension ends.”


It is important to avoid a cliff edge, but the longer temporary measures are in place, the harder the recovery will be. On early intervention, a smart and staged plan is needed for businesses to be in turnaround, ideally, rather than insolvency.

The main issue that businesses will face will be working capital and skills shortages. On the former, the reintroduction of Crown preference has reduced the amount of headroom in inventory finance to the point where there may not be any facility on which to draw. As a key creditor in most corporate insolvencies, along with landlords and banks, the Government have a direct role to play in supporting viable restructuring and business rescue proposals. HMRC, in particular, has not always taken a constructive approach to these proposals although, I understand from briefings, it is being as lenient as it possibly can be to companies that have been sensible taxpayers. However, every step should be taken to encourage HMRC to be as helpful as possible. This is now very important because, as I have noted, HMRC has Crown preference, which is a huge change from the former arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will advise us of whether the Government have any plans to review this preference.

As part of the excellent build back better policy, there is an inevitable need to reallocate resources, improve productivity and, therefore, grow sustainable jobs for businesses that can truly thrive in post-pandemic global Britain—as in post-Brexit Britain, my noble friend will note. There will be a painful but necessary process to get Britain back to fighting fit. There will be casualties; we have to accept that. The enormous challenge we have is to devise ways for fundamentally sound businesses to get through the next year or so, but not to prolong the agony for those that will just use up more and more resource before, sadly, they reach their inevitable end. I understand that the current rate of insolvencies is, roughly, one-third below the normal level, so there is a build-up of companies and businesses facing insolvency.

I will use this debate to make some related points to this SI. First, what will the Government’s approach be to the mounting level of corporate debt in the economy? What further flexibility will HMRC provide to Covid-hit businesses that need extra time to pay their debts? The Government need to make the most of the time they have bought for businesses, industry and the economy, not least by the Act, to consider how they will answer these questions. In particular, are there any further plans for some sort of equity fund, which was being discussed about a year ago, possibly through the British Business Bank or the Business Growth Fund, which celebrated its 10th anniversary last week? This needs to be reconsidered, as so many businesses just need a modest injection of equity—say £2 million or £3 million. I say “modest” in the nature of the world because £2 million or £3 million is below the amount that traditional private equity arranges and is not necessarily within the scope of EIS or SEIS. Of course, this is an opportunity for us to look again at the EIS rules, now that we are out of the EU. This is the famous equity gap that was first raised by Harold Wilson, when he was Prime Minister.

I turn to a subject that my noble friend and I have discussed at length, the moratorium. In answer to the question from my noble friend Lord Bourne, I think that there have been only four moratoria between June and December. There is an argument that initial take-up was low because of other reliefs, such as statutory demands, winding-up petitions, furlough payments, et cetera, which are protecting companies that might otherwise need the procedure. The extension is to the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for a moratorium to make it more accessible. I understand that the moratorium is intended to be a permanently available procedure and that permanent rules will be introduced in due course. Can the Minister comment on that and on whether the changes to the moratorium that we debated are under review?

By taking a more active and engaged stance as a creditor and legislator, I am sure that the Government could help to save more potentially viable businesses, thereby safeguarding thousands of jobs, securing future tax income and giving companies a chance to deal with the liabilities resulting from this pandemic. However, there must soon be a time when we allow businesses to find out if they are viable without further support, and thereby protect creditors from prolonging and deepening the problem.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I have received a request to ask a short question for elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I suppose I should say that modesty had forbidden me from putting my name down for this group. I wanted to have a point clarified and to thank the Government for listening to the Back-Benchers. I think it was fairly random that I took the 15% point: I cannot remember how it was allocated. I thank the Minister for listening to the many people who made representations.

In respect of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the fourth case—Clause 8(8)—we debated this and I think I raised the question at the time as to what influencing the policy of the entity means. To return the compliment to the Government, I agree with them in this instance because if we had Clause 8(8), I can see a lot of discussion and debate as to the meaning of enabling a person to materially influence “the policy”. We discussed the meaning of this at length. I return the compliment and agree with my noble friend the Minister.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will just say that, as always, I agree with my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 35, which was tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester.

As my noble friend Lady Hayter said in Committee, there is considerable concern in the higher education and research sectors about the potential impact of the Bill on research partnerships. Organisations have been crying out for clarity. Amendment 35, which I move on behalf of my noble friend—I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Clement-Jones, for signing it—would require the Government to

“publish guidance for the higher education and research sector”,

including

“a clear explanation of asset transactions”

indicating how

“research, consultancy work, and collaborative research and development”

will be affected and how the provisions apply to

“strategic security partnerships and domestic partners.”

The amendment would also require the Government to

“consult the higher education and research sector”

in a meaningful way in advance of the guidance. The amendment is therefore about developing guidance and promoting good practice, in that it should be done in co-operation with the sector. I certainly hope that the Government will agree to that.

The Russell group has said that, without clear guidance, a significant proportion of universities’ routine engagement with British business could inadvertently be captured by the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement on this issue; I understand that there has been an indication that the Government have listened. Without getting ahead of the Minister, when he comes to wind up, will he confirm when the guidance will be published by the Government and how higher education and research institutions will be involved in drafting it? Will a draft of the guidance be published beforehand, for example? How will higher education institutions be highlighted in the critical sectors? Will the guidance include hypothetical scenarios so that people can plan?

Universities want to help to make the Bill work, as we all do; the Bill has enormous support across Parliament. We can all be united in recognising the benefits of businesses working with research institutions, which we want not only to continue to support and allow to flourish but to continue increasing. I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Callanan—he is not in his place—for his letter to us regarding guidance products. I was a bit confused by the word “products” but let us let that pass for the moment. The letter tells us about the expert panel, which is welcome; I gather that it has already sat, so that is a good start. I was slightly disappointed not to see any representatives from the insolvency profession on that panel because I think that, when they wake up to it, they will find that this Bill affects them much more than they realise. R3 had already told me that it would like to be on the panel, and no doubt the IPA, after its annual lecture the other week, will be keen to have representations on it. I also hope that the expert panel might include members of the public and practitioners who feel that they can contribute usefully.

Audit and Corporate Governance

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether their proposals in Restoring trust in audit and corporate governance, published on 18 March, conflict with those in the UK Listing Review by Lord Hill of Oareford, published on 3 March.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s proposals on audit and corporate governance reform will enhance the UK’s reputation as a world-class destination for business and investment. They complement the aim of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, to increase the UK’s attractiveness as an international financial centre while maintaining the UK’s high standards of corporate governance and shareholder rights. The audit reform White Paper includes a specific option to exempt newly listed companies temporarily from the new requirements.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in the 210-page impact assessment, somewhat extraordinarily, no monetary benefits were identified, only costs. The average FTSE 100 company’s annual accounts have some 200-plus pages that are barely read and the proposals will simply increase the number of those pages. Are we now in danger of moving away from legislation on corporate governance to legislation on corporate management by the state? Is this area not best left to shareholders to decide on? With directors to be made personally liable for management errors, is my noble friend the Minister concerned that business will simply move to be listed in a more business-friendly environment?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The impact assessment, in fact, includes examples of quantifiable benefits that will be refined and developed in further iterations of the impact assessment. I agree that shareholders have a vital role in holding companies to account and the White Paper gives them important new tools to scrutinise audit and corporate reporting.

National Security and Investment Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill currently provides that the mandatory filing requirement applies equally to all investors, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey said. This is despite the Government stating quite rightly that domestic investors are inherently less likely to pose a national security risk. The Bill is ultimately about managing risk, so we need to ensure that the notifications that the ISU receives are the right sample. Exempting UK nationals from this process would be a far from proportionate approach. Since we are in the business of managing risk in a proportionate manner, we should consider whether investors from specific allies—Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand have been suggested—should be exempt since, again, the evidence strongly suggests that such investments are less likely to pose a national security risk, although I will come on to one caveat at the end of my remarks.

This aspect would also align more closely with some of our competitor jurisdictions. In any event, since national security is always paramount, it is worth noting that these amendments concern only the mandatory filing requirement. The Secretary of State would remain fully empowered to call in such transactions for review even if they concerned our citizens or allies or were below the threshold for control. That is an important distinction. I hope it means that lots of potential acquisitions by UK players will not get covered by notifiable regulations if we approve these amendments.

I am sure that the legislation is not meant to cover the situation where someone starts a business with a great idea and, say, £1,000. That business might touch on a number of sectors including, say, defence. We know that the sector definitions are very widely drawn. This entrepreneur then goes to some family and friends to seek funding, which might be through an EIS or, even better, an SEIS or possibly an EIS fund. The family and friends are all local. I know one investor who has only ever invested—with great success—in businesses run by someone he has personally met in his local pub. Such investors are vital to the UK economy and, in my opinion, do not carry a risk to security any greater than the person who started the business. As we currently have no size threshold at all, they would be caught by the Bill. It would be a great shame if they decided that they did not want to wait the 30 days or more for the Secretary of State to opine.

We all know the purpose of the Bill and it is not to restrict UK investors investing in UK companies. If we go down the route of exempting UK companies, we need to look more carefully at the definition of a UK company, which Amendment 96 seeks to do. I recognise that this is difficult. For example, many companies have private equity investment in them. They are clearly UK companies with a UK HQ, UK board and UK business but because the general partner investor may be based in, say, Guernsey, for the limited partners requirement—and the limited partner is almost certainly based abroad—they would need to be treated as a UK company to ensure a level playing field.

My noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have made some valid points. It is indeed true, for example, that many companies which are essentially Chinese are listed on NASDAQ. Would we call them American or Chinese? There has to be some very careful examination.

My last concern, which I mentioned in respect of Amendment 95, is to stop shell companies being created in countries such as Australia. Under these amendments, a shell company could buy a UK tech business and be sold immediately thereafter to a non-friendly company. Undertakings would therefore have to be put in to protect against that situation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that Her Majesty’s Government have underestimated the potential workload that this unit will get, but I am not convinced that his solution to reducing that workload is the right one. We have heard many speeches but I would single out those of my noble friend Lady Bowles, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as reasons why we should not be separating out one set of companies due to their nationality. The noble Lord made the point clearly that the criterion should be: is it or is it not a national security risk, rather than, does it or does it not come from Hampshire or New Hampshire? That should be the rule running through this.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, when moving into caveat territory, started to explain why singling out foreign companies becomes an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. First, what is one, and is it a shell company? Is it listed on NASDAQ but actually resident in Beijing? Those kinds of complications start to point to the Government’s analysis that all companies are in. Clearly, it will be easier for the company whose owner your friend meets in a pub to get through the process and not be called in, compared with one that hails from the Far East, for example. Surely, the process should be the efficiency with which the unit can deal with and dismiss issues quickly, rather than accidentally filtering out things that we should not.

On the concept that, “Our friends are our friends, so we include them as ourselves”, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the wider point about access to the technology. Access can be cut off by our friends as much as by ourselves or, indeed, by external companies. I am sorry, but I am going to repeat the example I gave at Second Reading. A British company with a US-based subsidiary took the technology to the United States, started to produce it and made one small amendment to that technology. The use and sale of the technology back to the UK was then blocked by the Department of Defense under export controls, because it considered it to then be United States strategic technology. I am sure that such things happen all the time—this example is just one that I happen to know about.

Regional agnosticism, the gospel according to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is the sensible approach here, and I hope that the Minister can explain his views on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17, which is in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her comments in respect of her amendment, which might actually be a better amendment than mine but none the less would achieve much the same thing. She probably does it in a more elegant way, but the purpose of my amendment is to understand the logic here and to persuade my noble friend the Minister that he should revert to 25% throughout.

The mandatory notification obligation in Clause 6(2)(b), which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, wants to delete, is triggered as a result of acquiring over 15% of shareholding or voting rights. In paragraph 52 and elsewhere, the White Paper specifies 25% but forecasts 15% for notifiable acquisitions. Accordingly, it is not, and is not intended to be, consistent with Clause 8, as the noble Baroness said, but that leads us into problems. Let us try to walk through this. It is complicated.

As I read it, Clause 6 is there so that the Secretary of State is given a mandatory notification for them to consider whether a trigger event has happened. Let us look at what a trigger event is, then. For that, we have to rely on Clause 8 to see under what definitions a people has gained control. Clause 8 lists four situations, three of which are where the shareholding is 25% or more. That is fine, but that clearly does not apply in a 15% situation. So you have to rely on the fourth situation, which is set out in Clause 8(8), which bites because it is the scenario where there is the ability, alone or with others,

“materially to influence the policy of the entity.”

Therefore, if an investor goes from, say, 14% to 20%, a lot of work has to be undertaken to see whether that person can materially influence the policy. If the threshold was 25%, there would be no need to do this. So given that it is most unlikely that a sub-25% shareholder can materially alter the policy—more importantly, this will be hard to determine in practice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said—are we not creating an unnecessary problem for ourselves? What does “materially influence the policy” mean anyway? Which policy? All policies? Dividend policy? Maybe. Hiring and firing policy? Most unlikely. Again, this will lead to consternation and commercial agreements on shareholders’ rights having to be implemented, which will be hard to negotiate because, when you enter this sort of area, there will be uncertainty over whether you can materially alter policy.

In my plea for certainty and clarity, can we make it 25% throughout? The risk of a 15% shareholder throwing their weight around to demand that action be taken to change a policy that would be against our national interest is somewhat remote. I suggest that, with a 15% threshold, there will be significantly more cases to consider, the overwhelming majority of which will not have national security implications. The current filing threshold of 15% is significantly below the thresholds used in a number of other major foreign direct investment regimes. France’s is 25%, which the amendment proposes, and Canada’s is 33.3%. I note that my noble friend Lord Vaizey is not due to speak on this group, unfortunately, but if he did I am sure that he would continue to encourage the Minister to look to Canada rather than France, which is perhaps a natural progression.

I am aware that some countries have a 15% threshold, but they are not jurisdictions seen as international business headquarters or centres of international business in the same way as we are, and we have to remember that there is a difference. Considering the volume of transactions, it will even, I suggest, lead to transactions that pose a national risk being overlooked because of the volume generated by this very low, 15% threshold.

While we are on this clause, can the Minister help me with Clause 6(3), which is relevant to the clause we are debating? It states:

“But a notifiable acquisition does not take place if complying with the requirement to give a mandatory notice under section 14(1) in relation to the gaining of control, or the acquisition of the right or interest, would be impossible for the person within subsection (2).”


What does “would be impossible” mean? I have asked around, and no one I have asked can be sure. Is this when a public company’s shareholder trips over 15%? What does “complying … would be impossible” mean? Could we all argue that it is impossible, give all sorts of reasons unspecified and that is the end of it? If much, much better brains than mine cannot understand the clause, it must need amending. I cannot amend it because I do not know what it is trying to achieve, but it cannot be good law to have clauses which are not immediately intelligible to, if not the layman, then the reasonably well-informed reader.

The whole of Clause 6 is difficult. It talks about regulations we have not seen and then gives power for those regulations to be amended at will under subsection (5). I think subsection (5) is where a white list is introduced in the regulations, but it, and subsection (6) allow carte blanche and, accordingly, more uncertainty. Can the Minister commit to look at Clause 6 again, specifically with the amendment I have tabled and with the amendment that he can see I will perhaps have to table on Report? Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which we discussed the other day, would have helped. Can the Minister give some assurances that parliamentary scrutiny will be given to these regulations?

Amendment 17 looks to strike a more proportionate balance between protecting national security and reducing unnecessary burdens on investors. We want to be seen as an investment-friendly country.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for introducing their amendments and exploring the reasoning behind them, which I have found helpful. I put my name down to speak to Amendment 17, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for whom I am broadly substituting because he is regrettably unavailable until later today. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I was wondering why the Government chose 15% as the threshold above which a notification would become mandatory.

On the previous group, I wondered whether we could have different thresholds for different reasons. That would not be without precedent. For example, Australia has different percentage thresholds for lesser and more sensitive assets and different business value thresholds depending on the country of the acquirer. However, here we have 15%, which might be a number above which you fear an activist shareholder, but why?

In the UK, shareholders get some additional rights at 5%: they can go to court to prevent the conversion of a public company to a private company; they can call a general meeting; they can require the circulation of a written resolution to shareholders in a private company; or they can require the passing of a resolution at an annual general meeting of a public company. At 10%, you can call a poll vote on a resolution. At more than 10%, in a private company, you can prevent a meeting being held at short notice. At 15%, you can apply to the court to cancel a variation of class rights, provided that the shareholders have not consented to or voted in favour of the variation. Getting to 25% is significant, because it gives the right to prevent the passing of a special resolution, which could affect various articles and other things. I cannot see that preventing a change in class rights, assuming that a court would agree, is significant. I am slightly bemused about where that 15% number was plucked from.

We get to the point about whether fear of an activist shareholder is what this is all about. We hear of the insistence on having a director, when there is a certain quantity of shares, but they have to be able to control all the other directors, which does not always happen. It brings to the fore a thought about who owns the other shares, which would have to be taken into account in any assessments. Conditions might then be put on a company in respect of what happens to other shareholders to allow a transaction to pass.

As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, explained, this makes something more complicated for reasons that do not yet seem clear. There are surely other inherent safeguards that would do the job. From that point of view, I support Amendment 17 signed by my noble friend but, as has been explained, there are other ways in which it could be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very considered comments, in particular his explanation of Clause 6(3). I think it allows a coach and horses to be driven through most of this legislation if someone can claim an impossibility. The examples he gave were excellent but there will be many other examples where people can claim an impossible circumstance. We will come on later to talk about, for example, the position of administrators and liquidators, and I can think of many others as well. I would have thought Clause 6(3) needed refinement.

Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned “materially control” as opposed to “materially influence”. There is a difference and this is not about materially controlling but about materially influencing. Regarding Clause 8(8), I accept that there are definitions elsewhere of materially influencing the policy. However, I remain of the view that it is not possible below 15%, or indeed below 25%, to materially influence the policy as far as national security is concerned. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister has a chance to reflect on this specifically before Report.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will take that as a comment and not as a question. I continue to look at all aspects of the Bill to see how they can be improved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

20: Clause 7, page 5, line 10, at end insert “, save that any entity that has annual turnover in the United Kingdom less than £10 million is not a qualifying entity for the purposes of this Act (other than in circumstances where the acquisition of that entity is by means of artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality and are intended to circumvent the provisions of the Act).”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment to page 5, line 20 in the name of Lord Leigh of Hurley, seek to introduce value thresholds for qualifying entities and assets (subject to anti-avoidance provisions to prevent the circumvention of the Act), which would bring the NSI regime in line with other leading foreign investment regimes that have de minimis financial thresholds for notification.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill is probably more important than many people have realised. I suspect it is not by coincidence that, as I was pleasantly surprised to read in my Sunday papers—on the front page of the business news, no less—it has finally attracted attention from the business community. It has, to be honest, been a bit slow in picking up the significance and importance of this Bill. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, will be speaking to this group of amendments, representing as he does the most important business representative body.

There are significant concerns. Amendment 20 would achieve consistency with other regimes which have de minimis thresholds for notification. A key concern is not to dampen innovation in the UK, where vast VC investment is essential to the growth of businesses, particularly in the tech sector, where we have been spectacularly successful. The cost of investment is high for people watching every penny in a start-up. These are the most mobile entrepreneurs, of course. People just graduating or completing a PhD can choose pretty much any country in the world to start their business. They often start their business knowing it will need a lot of capital to be attractive, and possibly hoping it will be sold to realise capital gain. So, impediments will be a deterrent, particularly for small businesses.

Equally, investors in small businesses want to be sure they can obtain a clean and simple exit. I know that tech businesses can go for astonishingly high valuations and revenue multiples, much to the horror of people like me and, I suspect, other noble Lords in this Committee, who were brought up to regard post-tax profits multiples of seven as perfectly respectable, and are astonished to see revenue multiples of seven on transactions. What we might regard as a small business can have a huge valuation. I hope the Minister finds an acceptable number for a de minimis threshold and, as a result, cuts out a lot of red tape for small businesses, which are looking for government to honour their commitment in these happy post-Brexit days to less red tape for business people—particularly from this Government. Introducing the value thresholds of £10 million in annual turnover in the UK for qualifying entities and £10 million gross value for qualifying assets, subject to anti-avoidance provisions, is a proportionate approach. But, obviously, we look to the Minister to suggest another number if he thinks that is appropriate.

Amendment 52A, which is also in my name, is extremely important. It introduces a fast-track process for transactions that clearly might not raise national security concerns, but which none the less need to be notified due to their targeted activities being in a specified sector. The Bill currently envisages that the ISU will reach an initial decision on whether to clear a notified transaction or call it in for a detailed assessment within 30 working days of accepting the notification as complete. A number of parties who contributed to the public consultation were worried that the ISU would not be able to manage even the modest expected flow of transactions. If a 30-day period is granted and then an extension, which it is within its power to do, one can easily see this becoming the norm. Frankly, this will be far too long. As Ministers know, most things in life, but transactions in particular, have a momentum, and imposing a delay of 30-plus working days could lead to huge uncertainty and worry. People will be aware that the transaction is taking place, and they will be worried about their jobs in case the transaction does not happen. Employers will be nervous, because they will know that this is the point at which their employees are most vulnerable to being poached or headhunted. This long freeze on activity could be a disaster, to the point where business owners become reluctant to take in investment for this very reason, which would be a great shame.

To minimise the deterrent effect of the new regime on foreign investment into the UK, this amendment would introduce a fast-track procedure for non-problematic transactions, enabling the acquirer to request a review period of 10 working days, instead of 30, combined with reduced information requirements for the notification. The use of a fast-track initial review procedure would not prevent the Secretary of State referring a transaction for an in-depth assessment, if considered necessary. The timetable for such subsequent review would not be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

In other words, a person is not treated as gaining control of an entity simply by exercising their rights as an administrator during the relevant insolvency proceedings. I hope that that allows my noble friend to put the audience’s minds at rest, if they raise this issue tomorrow night. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have adequately addressed their concerns and I ask that these amendments be withdrawn.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who contributed to this group. We did not quite get unanimity, but we got close to it from those who spoke. The second-biggest accolade of my life has to be the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, calling my arguments “cogent”, so I am grateful to him for that.

It is noticeable that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—I know that he speaks on behalf of himself—spoke as president of the CBI. It is regarded by some as the advocate for large businesses, but he recognises that small businesses may struggle with this Bill. Although I take the point of my noble friend Lady Noakes that a very small business could be subject to a national security risk, I have to say to the Minister that there must be some level below which this Bill should not apply. He suggested that the Government start with £1 million as a stopgap, but I started with £10 million. What do you say?

I also take his points that revenue and gross asset definitions are difficult sometimes, but there are other ways—for example, just looking at the amount invested in a project or business. If it is less than £0.5 million, would we really think that there is a national security risk from someone taking a 15% stake? Perhaps we could have another look at that.

I thank the Minister again for his comments on the working days needed. I am sure that he is sincere in his view that this will be a deadline but we have seen circumstances where the deadline becomes the norm, and 30 working days with a possible extension of another 40 is a long time. The takeover panel gives rulings within an hour. I would have thought that the Secretary of State might allow himself to be stretched to having the option of allowing a reply within 10 working days in certain circumstances where it is apparent that an urgent matter needs to be resolved for all sorts of extremely important reasons, as we discussed earlier. It could be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to agree to a sticker of 10 working days, as it were, going on a particular case because of a threat to employment, a threat to a business’s viability or certain other criteria.