ONS Decisions: Student Loans

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

In the spring statement, we would expect to see the revised forecasts. Of course, Government spending plans, which incorporate a huge number of areas and a huge number of Departments, will be announced at the spending review in the Budget.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The ONS has confirmed that this is an accounting trick, which this Government have been happy to use to cover up the true extent of the deficit and the mismanagement of the public finances. If this was in the private sector, the finance director would now be being hauled over the coals. When is the Government’s finance director going to admit that they were wrong, and apologise to both students and the public?

Business Rates

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, because it is the small retailers that are really struggling to survive, and it is an issue of survival in the current age. Of course, business rates are at the heart of the decision by businesses as to whether to remain open or close.

Other organisations have been brought to my attention that are even worse affected than those with the 600% increases I have cited. For instance, there are organisations that have had rooftop solar panels installed and then seen their business rates rise by as much as 800%, and all for doing the right thing. The Valuation Office Agency is discussing similar measures for battery storage, all at a time when green energy and microgeneration should be promoted; instead, people are being deterred from doing their bit for the environment.

Let us remind ourselves that business rates are set by multiplying the valuation rate—that valuation rate is based on the market rental value, as if the property was being placed on the open market—by a multiplier set by Government. In England, that is 49.3p, or 48p for small businesses. It cannot be raised by more than the rate of the retail prices index, or the consumer prices index from this year.

There are certain relief schemes in place, three tiers of arrangements to reduce the burden on small businesses, and an array of different arrangements for charities, rural businesses and community sports clubs. Last April, temporary relief was also introduced, with an additional relief fund of £300 million, which was to be shared between local authorities around the country over four years. Pubs with a rateable value above £100,000 were given relief at a flat rate of £1,000, which is subject to current state aid rules. I would like the Minister to examine that specific issue. There are also relief schemes for fibre infrastructure, local newspapers and empty properties.

York received £788,000, but the local council’s governance of the money provided by that fund has been extremely poor. It started with an application process in May to provide grants to businesses that were struggling and that could guarantee—that is, guarantee—they would be sustainable. However, because businesses were unable to give such an assurance, they were unable to apply. In December, the council therefore changed its mind. All businesses with premises that have a rateable value under £200,000 and that had experienced a business rates increase of over 12.5%—except for national chains and local government premises—automatically received a discount, meaning that the council did not even consider hardship issues; the discount was an automatic entitlement. The Government should have provided far better guidance for councils that were handing out taxpayers’ money; the councils really did not have the understanding of what was required of them to support businesses.

This year, York will receive £383,000; next year, it will receive £158,000 and the following year just £23,000. That tapering leaves businesses in an incredibly vulnerable position, without any long-term solutions being provided by the Government. Businesses are crying out for such solutions.

York is not unique, but it does provide the Government with an excellent case study as to why the business rates system is failing. I will provide some examples of the systematic problems that my city is facing.

Retailers in high-value rental areas pay the highest rates, whereas companies selling goods on the internet from warehouses in low-value rental areas pay the lowest. For example, Amazon is the largest retail business in the UK, with a warehouse of 65,000 square feet outside York. In York, Amazon pays £1.4 million in rates. Marks & Spencer in York city centre is seven times smaller in size, but it still pays £500,000 in business rates, or about a third of the amount that Amazon pays.

The smallest stores pay the most. For example, in York city centre small shops pay up to £950 per square metre, whereas larger companies benefit from a special larger store rate of £110 per square metre. If all companies in York paid the same as small businesses in York, Marks & Spencer would have a rateable value of £9 million and Amazon would have a rateable value of £61 million. Across the sector, the perception has grown that the Valuation Office Agency gives large companies favourable treatment to avoid lengthy and costly disputes, and clearly small businesses are suffering.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The comparison between what is paid by large out-of-town and online retailers and what is paid on high streets is extremely well drawn. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that unless something is done—and it can only be done by the Government—to create a fairer business taxation system to even up the situation between online and out-of-town retailers on the one hand and the high street on the other, high streets and their communities will continue to suffer, and anybody who works in those areas, and their families, will be put under pressure? This issue has to be dealt with urgently, and the Government must intervene to address the problems of unfair business taxation.

[Rachael Maskell]

The point my hon. Friend raises is the point of this debate. The reality is that we are talking often about independent business in which families have invested, maybe for generations, building it up and building a reputation, only to find that the competition from online sales and out-of-town stores is challenging. In addition, such businesses then have the weight and burden of business rates to pay on top of high rental values for their properties. The sums simply do not add up, and it is driving them out of town.

That situation is why we are seeing so many closure notices on shops. Some shops have been part of communities for decades and are sadly no longer there. That is certainly true of York. Our communities are losing their identity as a result and that is changing what happens in our town and city centres. I could relate so many stories from York of how independent shops have disappeared to be replaced by vertical drinking establishments and other such premises. That changes the whole context of our city. It is vital that we get on top of the business rates issue.

We have to recognise that businesses are penalised when they try to do the right thing, as equipment adds to the rateable value of business premises. Companies are penalised for making improvements to their businesses. Labour’s manifesto promised to exclude all new investment in plant and machinery from future business rates to encourage investment. We want to see employers investing in the future of their business, but they are deterred. If that investment would put up their rateable value, why take those steps when they are already struggling?

European Affairs

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

First, I apologise to the House for missing the start of the debate, which was entirely beyond my control.

I also thank my hon. Friends for their contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I will just mention the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, who described the Government’s approach and their fantasy trade deals as a dog’s breakfast; I have to say that my dog would turn up his nose at these fantasy trade deals on offer from the Government.

It cannot be right that the Government have so little regard for the sovereignty of this House that they provide little more than a two-day general debate and offer no meaningful vote, when most of this debate was always going to be about the single biggest issue to face this country in generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) told us in his opening remarks yesterday, the Government are attempting to look like they are doing something when in fact they are not only doing nothing, but have no idea what they even should be doing. Instead of filling two days of parliamentary time on this general debate, the Government should be bringing back the Trade Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and introducing the other Bills that they promised, including those on fisheries and agriculture.

Yesterday, the Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), congratulated the Government on bringing forward the trade and customs Bills and suggested that

“they have been designed to prepare us for every eventuality, although they will be needed regardless of the outcome of our negotiations with the EU. They will give us a strong trade remedies regime.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 915.]

However, they have not prepared us for every eventuality. In fact, they prepare us for no eventuality whatsoever as they fail to set out any legislative procedure for future trade agreements or for the protections of our rights and standards. As for the trade remedies authority, it has been described by the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, the industry body representing our manufacturing sector, as being the weakest in the world. The Opposition recognised the need for a trade remedies authority in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading. In Committee, we tried to strengthen the powers and the contribution that the authority will need to make, but the Government voted against and defeated every single one of our amendments. The Government know that they are in trouble with those Bills, which is why they are afraid to bring them back here. As many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, significant matters remain unresolved, and no credible solution has been presented by the Government, but they are none the less eager to rule options out.

The UK’s trade with the EU accounts for 44% of our total exports—some £229 billion. A further 16% of our exports go to those 70 or so countries that are party to some form of a trade agreement with the EU, including South Korea, Norway and Switzerland. In short, the majority of our trade is with EU or countries with which the EU has a trade agreement. The EU is of course the largest trading bloc in the world, and it is inconceivable that any trade agreement that the UK might be able to conclude with countries outside the EU would make up for the potential loss of trade once we leave. Of course, the UK will have to conclude new agreements with those countries that have an agreement with the EU, and the Government have attempted to spin the Trade Bill as being simply about that.

However, some of the agreements may well be significantly different from existing arrangements. South Korea, Chile and the other countries involved may well want an agreement with the UK after we leave the EU, but the question is why those countries would want to agree to the same terms that we currently enjoy as EU members. Furthermore, they will want to ensure that there is no overall disruption to their current trade with the EU. Of course, they will want a clear picture of what our future agreement with the EU looks like. Everybody is out for the best they can get for themselves. Every opportunity to take a little more and give a little less will be capitalised upon.

We already know that some of these countries, such as South Korea and Chile, have told the EU that they want to revise terms of their existing deals once the UK has left. Meanwhile, other countries have publicly called for changes to their trade with the UK after Brexit, calling for divergence from EU standards or liberalisation of tariff rate quotas. They do not want the same terms as before; they want better terms—for them, not for the UK. It will come down to who has the upper hand and the benefit of experience in trade talks.

Investors want to know whether they will be able to continue to participate in European supply chains and how rules of origin will apply after Brexit. Will they have to complete arduous customs declarations and advanced screening applications? Will their goods be held up at ports and train stations? It is clear that the Government have absolutely no idea what to do about the border on the island of Ireland. The Government have repeatedly told us that they will not have a hard border, nor will they have a border at sea. They have told us there will be no infrastructure on the border, yet they have also suggested that a digital border will be put in place and have hinted that it will involve CCTV and automatic number-plate recognition technology. Quite how CCTV and ANPR can exist without infrastructure, I do not know; that is a step even further in the Secretary of State’s blue-sky thinking. That proposition is untried and untested, and it has been dismissed categorically by businesses, the Irish Government and the European Union. Even if that were not the case, it would require a substantial systems overhaul across the European Union as well as in the UK, and HMRC has already said that it would not be in a position to roll that out by the time the UK leaves the EU.

Further, the success of any border arrangement, if such an arrangement could be found, would depend entirely on the extent to which UK regulations and standards were compatible with those of the EU. Those are fundamental questions, but despite 20 months having passed since the referendum result and a year since article 50 was triggered, the Government are no further on with answers to them.

Many of those issues would be substantially resolved if, as the Opposition have suggested, the Government were to negotiate a new, bespoke, comprehensive UK-EU customs union. Such a customs union would allow existing trade arrangements to be rolled over with minimal changes. That is what the Government say that they want. Disruption to trade, such as changes to rules of origin requirements and diagonal cumulation, would also be avoided.

Under Labour’s suggested approach, we would work alongside the EU in new trade arrangements. It is shocking that the Government have drawn a red line of not being in a customs union, without modelling the effects either way. If we agreed an EU-UK customs union, the EU would be enhanced by having the strength of the world’s sixth-largest economy joining it in negotiations, and we would be strengthened by negotiating alongside the largest trading bloc in the world.

Our approach would also remove the need for customs checkpoints and accompanying infrastructure on roads between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our approach recognises that the EU is the largest market in the world, and that we are stronger in future negotiations alongside it. The Labour party seeks solutions to the problems that the Government have presented to the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman represents a north-west constituency.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

This Government have done nothing to deliver local rail infrastructure in the north-west, which is vital for jobs and the economy. When are they going to invest in decent local rail services, including those used by my constituents from Southport to Manchester? If the Government will not do it, they should stand aside and let us get on with the job.

[Robert Jenrick]

The Government have been investing more in railways across the country than any Government since Victorian times, including in the north of England. Across the country, the Government have invested £0.25 trillion in infrastructure projects since 2010, 4,500 of which have already been completed.

Community Bank Closures

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing the debate, in collaboration with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). It has been an excellent debate. Many examples were cited, and there was cross-party acknowledgment of the devastating impact on all our communities of the closure of branches of a variety of banks.

The point about the impact on accessibility was well made. Members spoke about the impact on individuals and communities. As the Social Market Foundation points out, 11% of the population rely completely on high street bank branches, and that is typically the older and poorer parts of our communities. This is an example of financial exclusion, and it is a real problem throughout the country. Only 30% of the over-65 population use online banking. That is of particular importance in constituencies such as mine, which is in the top 20 of constituencies for people aged over 65. That is a real cause for concern, to which I shall return later, with examples from my constituency.

Individuals and businesses need banking services to suit their needs. A British Banking Association survey found that 58% of people surveyed stated that access to a branch—using a branch—was important to them, and 57% believed that face-to-face relationships with their bank were important. Those figures go up for businesses: for SMEs, the figures are that 68% believe that a branch is important and that 66% find that face-to-face banking is important. Therefore, the impact of branch closures is felt by individuals in their personal banking and for business banking, with particular impacts on our high streets—our communities. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that it is a great worry for its members that many now struggle to do the banking that they need.

In my constituency, in the last few years alone, we have seen closures of RBS, TSB, the Co-op bank, HBOS and HSBC branches. Alongside those we have seen significant post office closures. I agree with the Members who spoke about the important role that the post office network plays in providing banking services. Unfortunately, I see no evidence of co-ordination between the banks and the Post Office to ensure that post offices provide services in place of banks when there are closures.

In one of the three towns in my constituency—the town of Maghull, where I live—we have seen significant closures, adding Barclays to the list that I gave. The RBS branch in Maghull now opens for only two days, Monday and Friday. As was pointed out to me today by a constituent whose business has to bank the takings every day, that is absolutely hopeless. What are businesses to do on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday?

NatWest’s justification—it is online and anyone can see it—for the closure of its branch in Maghull includes the point that it is only 3.4 miles to the nearest bank, but that is hopeless if people cannot travel there by bus or car. For many older people, it is completely out of the question. NatWest also states that it consulted its local MP: it clearly thinks that everything is OK because it asked me whether it was all right to close the branch. I did not say that it was, by the way.

We have heard some excellent speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made points similar to mine about closures in the towns that she represents. She spoke about the vital function of bank branches for businesses depositing the day’s takings, and about the impact of the proposed closure of the LINK network. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) spoke about NatWest closures, and said that his constituency now contains only one bank to serve all the communities there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), among others, mentioned the lack of awareness of post office services. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made a powerful case—

[Caroline Flint]

Right hon.

[Bill Esterson]

I am very sorry—my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. I am pleased to be able to set the record straight.

[Caroline Flint]

I worked hard for that.

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend is working very hard on this campaign, as well as having worked hard to achieve that recognition in this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) mentioned the RBS closures, as did other Members in all parts of the House. Some spoke in a very heated way and no love was lost on a couple of occasions. An important point was made about the limited response of RBS to the concern that was being expressed about the closures. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) drew attention to the key role of banks in attracting footfall and trade for other local businesses. He rightly spoke of the importance of Labour’s regional banking offer and the opportunity that it presents for community banking.

Like other Members who spoke, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) represents an area that contains only one bank branch to serve all her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) mentioned bus services and said that many of his constituents did not have access to the internet or phone. He also spoke about the impact on his local town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said that bank branch closures hit the poorest communities hardest. He also rightly observed that we might do well to emulate and learn from the successful arrangements in Germany.

These branch closures are happening at a time when banks are making healthy profits. We have to wonder who the customers are, and whether the banks have lost sight of the fact that it is the personal and business banking customers who are their customers. I always thought that putting customers first was the way for a business to operate and succeed. That was certainly a lesson that I learned when I ran a business.

Has the time come to put public good ahead of short-term profit? The challenger banks—such as Metro, which is open seven days a week, and the Bank of Dave, which results from the entrepreneurial approach taken by Dave Fishwick in Burnley—have demonstrated that it is possible to make a success of a bank branch. Is it time for banks and financial services to be seen as a utility, an essential public service that delivers for customers—for high streets, communities and small businesses? We regulate the financial services sector now, and I can tell the Minister that if the Government will not add to that regulation by addressing this issue, a Labour Government certainly will. We will ensure that no closure can happen without proper local consultation, and, crucially, without the approval of the Financial Conduct Authority.

I cannot conclude without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned RBS and GRG: the systematic abuse, the intentional and co-ordinated approach of management, the clear RBS board responsibility for the mistreatment of small businesses. That serves as another reminder that the current attitude and approach of banks is not what is needed by their customers.

Government must intervene so that the banks work for us. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, the banking access protocol has not delivered. There is an impact on communities, travel, public transport, the environment, economies and businesses from lowering footfall, and there is lower lending in places without bank branches. Some 10% of households do not have the internet, and only 9% of small firms approached their banks in 2016 for finance. All of these things are examples of why the banking system is not delivering.

This is not about the nostalgia of Captain Mainwaring or Walmington-on-Sea; it is about what is needed today. Face-to-face banking for business and personal customers matters, service matters, and bank branches matter and can be alongside the post office. If we put the public good first, we can be successful. The voluntary approach has not worked, and the only organisation that can ensure our banking system delivers is Government. It is time to act.

Trade Bill (Third sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

What about the English?

[Hon. Members]

Ah!

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Could you speak up, please?

Elspeth Macdonald: Yes. This Bill provides for carry-over from existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries. I think that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has some influence on this process, too.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Gary Stephenson, in your 2016 annual report, you said:

“the proposed new international trading arrangements…may be on disadvantageous terms compared to the current conditions.”

Could you say what your concerns are about the trade agreements covered in this Bill, and where you see the possibility of them being included on disadvantageous terms?

Gary Stephenson: I assume that refers more to the EU situation, in that in Scotland, a large proportion of our exports are to the EU, and we are clearly looking potentially at more challenging conditions from the standpoint of, “Will the UK be added to the EU list of approved countries?”, and registration of approved establishments. At the moment, it is probably the sheer volume of materials having to pass through customs and border inspection posts and so on that is likely to cause increased trading challenges, unless we get that right, and that is a critical piece.

[Bill Esterson]

Q I asked about a slightly different issue: the agreements being moved over to between the UK and the 40 or so partners.

Gary Stephenson: For the EU free trade agreements, I do not necessarily see them being as challenging. The only issue would be—take Korea. We used to export to Korea before the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement came in and basically removed the tariff, so the only difference, hopefully, would be that we are back to a tariff situation, which we did not have during the free trade agreement.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Sure. We had evidence on Tuesday that the EU will still have a say, or that it will be relevant to include the EU in discussions about the so-called roll-over—the move to corresponding agreements, as a different way of putting it. What is your take on that? Some deals are tripartite, rather than bipartite.

Gary Stephenson: I think the issue here is that the EU will still have a say in this. To what extent do we want to negotiate bilateral agreements with these free trade association countries? Or do we want a trilateral-type agreement, which would be a sort of joint EU-UK-third country negotiation?

[Bill Esterson]

Q What is your view, for this process?

Gary Stephenson: My view would be that a trilateral would be a better option, because you are not looking at changing anything.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Can I ask Elspeth Macdonald about tariff rate quotas? What concerns does your sector have about the potential changes to the UK’s current share of TRQs and any changes to regulatory standards that would allow overseas producers to access UK markets as a result of a copy-and-paste approach to the existing free trade agreements?

Elspeth Macdonald: Certainly, in relation to regulatory standards—technical standards—for food, industry and consumers are generally fairly confident and satisfied with the standards in the current EU regulatory framework. Certainly, when we talk to businesses and the public about the regulatory standards governing the food that they eat, and the food that they buy and use in their businesses, in Scotland, there is a generally high degree of satisfaction with EU standards. Any changes in future that began to change those regulatory standards away from those that currently provide a high degree of public health protection and consumer protection would be of some concern.

[Bill Esterson]

Q On the tariff rate quotas, we have heard from other countries that they want not just the current level of quotas to be maintained between the EU and the UK, and the split that the UK Government have proposed, but additional quotas.

Elspeth Macdonald: My organisation’s perspective on this is probably more around the non-tariff side. Certainly, businesses that we regulate in Scotland will be concerned to ensure that they have as little disruption as possible to their access to markets.

[Bill Esterson]

Q But what if one of the consequences of the negotiations to produce corresponding agreements was additional quotas that increased imports in your sector? Do you have a view on that?

Gary Stephenson: That is probably more in the food manufacturers’ area, because how the tariff rate quota is divided up is obviously for negotiation between the UK and the EU. I know that the World Trade Organisation has some influence on how it is divided up. This is where the specific industry sector should be consulted on what it believes would be the fair quota. Any of us is probably not in a position to set out a position on any specific quota. Take lamb as an example: what is a suitable quota that the UK would take back from the EU? It is a complex area, and I think it is best to ask that question of the sector responsible.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Q Happy Burns day to everyone, and I thank the witnesses for joining us today. Following on with the issue of cost, the meat sector is potentially looking at WTO tariffs on meat processors at 60%. If that is coupled with HMRC saying that 130,000 companies have never filled out a customs declaration, what impact, from a food and drink and meat processing perspective, do you think there will be on the sector, broadly and in terms of bureaucracy and staffing? Do you feel that adequate investigation and consultation has taken place?

Gary Stephenson: Wow, that is a big one. There are a number of elements to this. My company is in a fairly unique position in the food industry, in that we already import product into the EU, so we understand the complexities of that process. It is about whether the region you are from is authorised on the EU legislation side. Is your business registered within the EU as a registered business to produce that product? Other countries have similar issues. The US has similar legislation, which requires overseas suppliers to be registered with the Food and Drug Administration.

There is an additional piece: the export health certificates, which are not needed for the EU at present, but will be. Each one of those costs the business. It is not just the cost of the certificates—the vet must come to inspect. Have we got enough vets in the UK to provide that service? That is an additional challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

Q But if changes were required, surely you would want to be a part of that? It is perfectly possible that we could construct a better system.

David Scott: I appreciate that, but I do not believe that we can. I think the current system works in the best interests of the UK. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is regarded as a powerhouse within the regulatory sphere. If we tried to set up a secondary or different regulatory system, it would not be to the benefit of the UK in terms of how we operate in the global marketplace for some pharma services.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, can I come back very briefly to the question that you were answering from Barry Gardiner? You said that devolution was incompatible with the production of rapid trade deals. Does that also apply to what this Bill is attempting to do by creating corresponding agreements to the current EU free trade agreements?

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, and I think there is a great deal of confusion around it. I do not believe that there is sufficient clarity in the Bill about what is defined as a free trade agreement, for instance. If you do a deal with a nation that has multiple elements including an element of free trade, does that mean that the Minister would have full powers to do a deal that runs contrary to or overruns devolved powers? What is a specific trade deal? That needs to be defined, so as to limit the scope of the regulatory powers being granted by the Bill. A lot more clarity needs to come through in terms of the legal writing of it.

[Bill Esterson]

Q This is a question for all three of you. We have just been asking about consultation with devolved Governments. What about consultation with business, particularly sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals and medical supplies, on non-tariff measures? What do you believe should be the consultation before a negotiation takes place, particularly on the provisions of the Bill, with the creation of corresponding agreements?

David Scott: From my perspective, it would be good to engage with Life Sciences Scotland, the industry leadership group there, to understand the concerns and any wishes likely to be put forward. There is also the Scottish Lifesciences Association. There are a number of bodies in Scotland that should be spoken to and asked to come provide evidence from that perspective, so you can get a wider perspective on how Scotland’s life sciences community feels, not just in pharma and chemical but in animal health and across the broad remit of research and all these sorts of things, and get some information from the whole body of Scotland that is representative of the wishes of industry and business from that perspective.

Jonathan Hindle: I do not have a particular Scottish perspective on this. Generally speaking, the furnishing and furniture industry is keen to achieve what I am hearing from a lot of other industries: stability and consistency, equivalence and mutual recognition across the process. We are keen to advocate dialogue wherever we can have it to achieve that transition as smoothly as possible.

[Bill Esterson]

Q What are your concerns about consistency?

Jonathan Hindle: I cannot say that our industry is concerned at the moment that there will not be consistency; in everything that we are reading, we are told that attempts are being made to make that transition as smooth as possible. We do not currently endure any significant issues. There are some issues with policing and surveillance of some of the standards that we have mutually agreed; that is a current scenario and a problem now. I am hoping that the formation of the Trade Remedies Authority will allow for some more robust investment in policing and surveillance of the standards where we currently endure problems, but I would not say that we are suffering from dumping in the fullest sense of its description in this context, although we are a very substantial net importer. There is a big trade gap that we as a nation endure in our industry.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: You have raised an important point. Business for Scotland represents mainly small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. We surveyed 758 businesses and asked for their opinions on how the trade deals in Brexit have been processed and handled. There were 199,000 employees, half of the companies exported, and 41% had at least one non-UK-born EU national on their staff. We found that only 8% of Scottish business owners trusted the UK Government to deliver a deal that works best for Scottish business. Interestingly enough, 76.81% to 77% thought that calling a halt to Brexit would be beneficial to the Scottish economy. I think you have got an issue there: business does not really understand what is going on and there is a great deal of uncertainty. There is more uncertainty and more negativity towards Brexit in Scotland because Scotland voted to remain, and therefore there is less confidence in business as a direct result of that; so you will see that follow through.

I think the period between the point where we are still talking about deals and the point where we can actually start looking at trade deals has to be used for a massive consultation exercise with all the sorts of bodies that David mentioned before, but right across the UK. If we are going to do that we need to be preparing for it now. We need to be talking about it now. We need to be saying, “How are we actually going to deliver this?” Business for Scotland will be able to help, from a Scottish perspective, as much as we possibly can.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Again, when you are talking about trade deals, remember that the Bill is about the creation of corresponding deals. You are applying what you say to the provisions of the Bill as much as anything else.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes.

David Scott: Can I echo that? I think uncertainty is a killer at this point, specifically for my customers, whom I trade with on a global basis. They have a global supply chain and have to make contingency plans to ensure that whatever medicines they make are available to patients. Those contingency plans cannot wait until the eleventh hour or the last minute of any negotiations of any sort. I can tell you that they are starting to put those contingency plans in place now, and that they will have a massive effect on companies such as mine, and companies across the UK that support pharmaceutical R&D and the development and release of products on to the European market.

[Hannah Bardell]

Q Thank you for attending, and happy Burns day.

Perhaps I can start with you, David, and pick up on what has been said about confusion. The way I read your comments was that you were talking about concerns about legislative change under the Bill, and the ability to make changes in primary legislation. As we know, the Law Society of Scotland has raised issues concerning the timescale that that might mean for your organisation and sector. Could you talk about that a bit? Also, I notice from your photograph that you are MHRA and Food and Drug Administration approved. On the impact of leaving, and potential disjoint—we have already lost the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam—can you talk about the impact on your sector and company?

David Scott: Yes, the potential impact is massive. The whole of the medicines regulation is about harmonisation and working under one single set of standards, which are beneficial and mean that the speed to market of life-saving medicines is reduced. If we try to come up with a different set of regulations or way of working, and have duplication of effort, which is what would happen under the current proposal if we became a third country outside the EEA, pharma will look at us and think, “Is the market big enough?”

We are now a net exporter of pharmaceuticals into the European Union and have a trade surplus. We want to avoid anything that puts us into a deficit. If we cannot get some harmonisation and cannot stick with the current harmonisation, I am concerned that we will lose our reputation—or not our reputation, because the MHRA is one of the best in the world, as far as I am concerned, but the ability to get joined-up connectedness. That would have a massive impact on my industry and my company, without question. I would then be forced, contingency-wise, to say “What do I do? I can’t serve some of my customers’ needs in a different regulatory system.” It is a massive thing for us.

Trade Bill (Second sitting)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. At quarter to three, I will stop you talking, even if you are mid-sentence.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q Brigid Fowler, can you describe the procedure that you would recommend?

Dr Fowler: First, Parliament needs to be very clear whether it is happy that the Bill only covers the replicated agreement. You might want to decide that you are happier with these agreements and then do something stronger for the completely new agreements that the UK will be negotiating. I believe that is something that the Secretary of State has indicated he would be open to, but I suggest that Parliament might want to get that nailed down in some way at this stage.

As I have mentioned before, the main issues are the weakness of the CRAGA procedure at the moment—

[Bill Esterson]

Q What alternative do you recommend?

Dr Fowler: For example, you might simply want to have an affirmative motion, a motion for resolution, rather than the negative power that is applicable at the moment. That might be one option that the Government need to bring a motion for affirmative resolution. That is one possibility. Even more important is the preceding stage, which is processes around the signature of the new agreements, particularly where they might have been changed significantly from the existing EU ones. Again, there are things that Parliament could do about transparency, possibly having an approval motion, or recreating some kind of scrutiny reserve, possibly through a Committee. There are all sorts of institutional options, but I think the House might want to look at a set of processes around signature that the House might want to look at.

[The Chair]

We have a few seconds—I take the opportunity to thank our panel. You have been extremely clear and interesting and will greatly add to Members’ understanding of the Bill. Thank you very much for your evidence. Perhaps if you would like to shuffle off in one direction, the next lot will shuffle in.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor Alan Winters, Michael Clancy and George Peretz gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Let us be crisp, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson]

Q George Peretz, you were talking before about the Trade Remedies Authority. Can I bring you back to that? I believe that the Government are conducting a review into which trade offensive measures can be rolled over or passed forward—having heard that last piece of evidence, I am not sure what description to use. Can you describe the challenges and the consequences if some of those are not used by us when we are outside the EU?

George Peretz: Not all WTO law is clear, but what is pretty clear is that we could not simply automatically carry over existing trade remedies imposed by the EU and say, “These remedies will apply to the UK now that it is a separate WTO jurisdiction”—if I can use that term loosely. We cannot do that for one very simply reason: it is a condition of all trade remedies that there is a domestic injury. A domestic injury is defined, and the UK is obviously not the same as the EU. It is potentially an issue that applies the other way around, incidentally, but that it a problem for the EU rather than for us.

As far as I understand it, the Department for International Trade is feeling its way to dealing with this problem. As a first step, it is asking industries that benefit from an existing trade remedy to set out why they think it should continue and to explain what the domestic injury is. There is probably also a need for the UK to discuss with the European Commission what the position is. After all, in its investigation of all these remedies, the Commission will have built up a case file that will include quite a lot of information about what the injury is, some of which will be pinned down geographically. It will be able to say that that is evidence of an injury in the UK. Perhaps that could be used to justify carrying on the remedy after we have left the EU, but it would have to be the judgment of the new Trade Remedies Authority whether that evidence was good enough to withstand domestic scrutiny and appeals and, ultimately, a possible WTO challenge. There is a very difficult set of issues there, which will be a challenge for DIT and the TRA.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Q I want to go back to the scrutiny of the Bill. My understanding of what some people call the Henry VIII powers, for an SI or a DL, is that there is provision in both of those processes, whether they are negative or affirmative, to raise an objection for debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. My question is where is that process flawed?

George Peretz: I do not claim to be a great expert in parliamentary procedure, and I am not sure that I can add very much to what Brigid Fowler said about that—she is an expert on parliamentary procedure.

Plainly, there is an opportunity to challenge a statutory instrument that uses the negative resolution procedure, but clearly it is less likely to be challenged—just look at the statistics—than a piece of primary legislation, because one fundamental point about any statutory instrument is that the vote is simply an all-or-nothing vote on the instrument. There is no ability to have the primary legislation to say, “We agree with most of this clause but we don’t like clause 5, therefore we would like to amend that.” It is take-it-or-leave-it. The problem with a lot of this is that you will be told that the clock is running and you need to decide very quickly what to do.

Professor Winters: There is very little time, so be realistic about what the cost of a challenge would be and the pressures that that would generate.

Michael Clancy: It is the balance between speed and scrutiny—that is the whole point. To get that right is quite difficult with a negative or indeed an affirmative resolution procedure. Although theoretically each of these could be debated, I think it would be very difficult to get each of these debated. There simply is not enough time to do that—we are told that there are between 800 and 1,000 orders in relation to the EUWB. I do not know how many of them might be here—63 existing trade treaties, maybe more, and other things as well. That is the difficulty.

What are the defects? The defects are that we have an alternative procedure of super-affirmative if we need extra time to look at something—that is where the sift comes in. If the sift identifies a particular order as being important, it might then get better scrutiny, and better scrutiny might mean the affirmative resolution procedure on a super-affirmative basis. We do not know that the sift applies to these orders because the sift is not mentioned in this Bill. Will it be? Are you going to propose amendments? Is the Government going to take that forward to this Bill? That is another story for another day perhaps.

Then there is the issue—I think it is in one of the Hansard Society papers—of the difficulty, in fact the incapability, of amending these orders. They have to be taken back by the Minister and re-presented. That induces time and delay, and we are running out time and inducing delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Picking up on your last point, Mr Stevenson, in the EU, the Commission is obliged to report to the European Parliament on trade events, so there would be an annual production of just such statistics. There is a lacuna in the Bill in that there is no provision to make such a report to Parliament and to aid parliamentary scrutiny on trade remedies in that way. Is that something that you and the trade remedies alliance would seek to redress? Would you like to see introduced in this Bill some way in which a report ought to be made—an annual report perhaps—to Parliament?

Cliff Stevenson: Yes, what would definitely be of importance is to have a substantial report submitted to Parliament on an annual basis. In the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, there is a provision on reporting. There is already a proposal for there to be an annual report. The EU anti-dumping regulation is quite specific about what the European Commission must report to the European Parliament in terms of the statistics it must provide. A little more detail ensuring that certain things were provided in this report would be useful.

Tom Reynolds: The question about Parliament’s ongoing role with the Trade Remedies Authority is an interesting one, but so is Parliament’s role in setting up the rules for the system. The point made by Jude Kirton-Darling earlier on about the level of involvement of MEPs in scrutinising and offering amendments on, for instance, the new anti-dumping methodology and the TDI modernisation, which was mentioned, has been integral in improving that legislation from the Commission’s original proposals. I would be more comfortable if there was a more rigorous approach for parliamentarians to get involved in the setting of the rules for the system as well.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Can you describe what you think the authority should be comprised of? Who do you think should be on it?

Gareth Stace: Do you mean the board?

[Bill Esterson]

Yes.

Gareth Stace: The board needs to represent interests. From my point of view, I would like to see someone from industry and someone from the trade unions on that board to provide that balance, clarity and expertise as well. That could be set out in primary legislation. It is not there now.

Tom Reynolds: One of the most successful acts of Parliament in setting up a non-departmental public body over the years has been the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which stipulates that the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the commission—now the HSE board—must consult with organisations for three of the members. There could be representatives of the employers, and three of the representatives could be from the trade unions. That sort of model might lend itself well to the establishment of the Trade Remedies Authority and the appointments made to the non-exec board.

Gareth Stace: However, we would not want anything that you would add to it that would then create more work and delay measures in place or delay the investigations that would take place by the authority.

[Bill Esterson]

Q That neatly moves me on to another question. Can you describe what is at stake if we do not get this right after we come out of the EU? If you have specific examples, that would be helpful.

Gareth Stace: There is a whole range of “if we don’t get this right”. If we get this very wrong, we become the dumping ground—not just in Europe, but for the rest of the world. Think of the steel sector, which thrives on free, liberalised trade. That is what we are. Over a third of all steel produced travels across borders globally.

Also, something crucial, in particular for the steel sector, is that in 1994 we agreed as a sector with Governments to abolish all customs tariffs for steel for developed countries. There are no tariffs. So when you think about us coming out of the EU, whatever agreement or not is put in place, we as steel will not be subject to customs tariffs. That is not an issue for us—non-tariff barriers are an issue for us, but not tariff barriers. That enabled us to be even more liberalised in terms of trade. What supports that? Trade remedies support that: they are the safety valve that enables free trade to take place. Sometimes the debate turns the other way round, as if trade remedies were there to provide protectionism. We would say that if there were not a strong trade remedies regime in the UK or anywhere else in the world then you would see a rise in protectionism, with weak trade remedies.

There is a whole range of things that could go wrong. When the investigations take place in the end, will they find that there is no injury or dumping for whatever reason, even if there is? If they do find that there has been injury or dumping, what are the tariff levels that are set? Are they high enough to stop the illegal trade in the UK—the dumped steel that is against WTO rules? If the endgame is not that those tariffs are high enough, then we have a problem.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Sure. Is anything different in ceramics?

Tom Reynolds: We have a very similar experience. We are a sector that thrives on international trade: we export over half a billion pounds’ worth of products each year. We are not protectionist. However, as the Government have rightly pointed out, free trade does not mean trade without rules, and unfortunately some of our trading partners do not play by those rules. Examples from our sector include cases involving tiles and tableware. In the case of tiles, imports rose from a fairly stable level of around £4 million worth of tiles a year from China up to 2004, and rocketed in less than a decade to over £30 million worth of imports from China. If you were to look at volume, it was an even sharper rise.

The European Union introduced anti-dumping measures in 2011, which were not enormous—they are not the 230% tariffs that the United States has looked at. They were between 13% for co-operating companies in China, up to just short of 70% for non-co-operating companies. The introduction of those measures allowed our UK industry to stabilise and invest. As a result, employment has gone up by 40% in the sector, with even further boosts to the supply chain as well. All that could be at risk if we get things wrong.

It is worth noting that in 2011 the UK Government voted against the tiles measures in Council. That was understandable because the UK’s role within the European Union was as a liberal counterweight across the 28 member states. As we forge an independent trade policy we have a different role, but some of the most experienced civil servants and experts are steeped in that heritage of the UK being the liberal counterweight within the European Union. That is why we come back to this point about a non-exec board being a watchdog, ensuring a balanced system in the UK. It is an integral part of getting things right.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Do you think that needs to be appointed independently from the Secretary of State to achieve that?

Tom Reynolds: It is not something that the BCC or the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance has made a submission on; it is something that we would have to consider, and maybe we can write to the Committee.

[Faisal Rashid]

Q The membership of the Trade Remedies Authority, which, according to the Trade Bill, is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State: do you think it is appropriate and effective? How does the proposed TRA compare to similar bodies in other countries?

Cliff Stevenson: Obviously, the wording is not effective at the moment in terms of ensuring that there is a balanced composition of those members. If you look elsewhere and compare, the closest major trade remedy regime to the UK’s proposed system is Australia’s. It has a separate anti-dumping commission that works in a similar way to how the Trade Remedies Authority would work, but there is a big difference in the sense that it is headed up by one person, an anti-dumping commissioner: there is not a committee or a group of members in the way that is proposed for the UK.

One concern I slightly have with this is that it is an extra level of decision making. There is no detail on how the members might make a decision—whether they would vote if they disagreed—and that could hold up investigations, which are always subject to very severe time limits given the amount of work that has to be done.

In the US and Canada, for example, there are examples of independent bodies such as the United States International Trade Commission, which does the injury determination for the cases. It is a completely independent body that has six commissioners who vote at the end of the investigation. If there is a positive finding of injury and three out of six vote in favour, it will be an affirmative determination. In that case, where there is a quasi-judicial system where it is completely separate and not under any political control, there are these commissioners taking a vote on the basis of the technical information.

Gareth Stace: You have to look at what the TRA and the whole system is trying to achieve. Why is it being set up? It is being set up because we are leaving the EU. Is that an opportunity to have a system that is fleet of foot, quite simple and employs fewer people than the European Commission does?

That is why a year ago we, as UK Steel, said that actually what this arm’s-length, independent body could be doing is just looking at the dumping margin, because that is a really simple, straightforward—almost—calculation. It is what they do in the US, which is seen as a champion of free trade, and we want to create strong links with the US going forward. There was that opportunity to do that, and so the make-up of the TRA and the committee would not be as important as if it was then doing the injury calculation—that is much more of a black box. You stick a load of numbers in, and you hope that something will come out. You twiddle some dials as well, and the tariffs come out of that. So you probably do then need some independent committee to look at it, but how much are they going to influence—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Faisal Rashid]

Mr Jones, would you like to add anything?

Stephen Jones: No, I have nothing specific to add in relation to Africa in general.

On a more generic point in relation to the Trade Bill, it is obviously focused on existing trade agreements and economic partnership agreements. From a services perspective, we need to look beyond that and reflect on arrangements that exist beyond that, which are critical to the cross-border flow of trade in services, because there are very few provisions and services agreements in trade treaties that relate to services. There are lots of mutual recognitions and memorandums of understanding that relate to infrastructure, to recognition and co-operation between supervisors, to the flow of data and to the recognition of exchanges, but which do not exist within the context of a trade agreement. They nevertheless facilitate cross-border trade in services that already exists between the EU—including the UK—and other jurisdictions. It is very important that we do not lose sight of those specific provisions, but seek to mirror them so far as the financial services industry is concerned, simply because the existing trade treaty provision is so poor in services.

[Bill Esterson]

Stephen Jones, you are the UK Finance representative. Sorry, it has been a long day. Can I ask about the written evidence you gave to the Procedure Committee, where you indicated the benefits of a triage or sifting process and stated how you might apply those when looking at new trade agreements? For the purposes of the phrase “new trade agreements”, given some of the evidence we have heard today, can we include anything that changes the agreements that are part of this Bill? Can you explain what you think the merit of such an approach would be, how you might apply it, and the importance of such a sifting process?

Stephen Jones: Given the time available in the context of Brexit, from the perspective of the financial services industry, clearly continuity, speed and the correct process and scrutiny to transpose the existing trade arrangements that the EU has with the rest of the world to the UK are incredibly important for continuity. That does not directly benefit the financial services industry. It benefits mostly the customers of the financial services industry, but in that context it is very important.

To the extent that your question relates to prioritising whether one should seek to amend the agreements in order to ensure more robust coverage of services within the context of those agreements, I think that in the first phase that is unrealistic. There is not enough time. What we need is as much certainty as we can get. Business in general needs as much certainty as it can get in terms of the transposition of the existing EU arrangements.

In terms of the ongoing amendment of those treaties to seek to extend them and prioritise what should be done—the sifting process, if you like, for services—we can develop a modus operandi in terms of markets that are important. However, as I say, there are significant factors beyond trade agreements that influence the ability to conduct cross-border business between the UK and the rest of the world. Those are a susceptibility to inward investment; strong regulatory and supervisory co-operation; aspects of data protection and the willingness to mutually recognise the cross-border sharing of data; and infrastructure, with the recognition on a cross-border basis of critical market infrastructure in each jurisdiction, such that member firms in each place are able to access and utilise the infrastructure in the other country. To the extent that that can be captured within a trade agreement, that is great.

To date, that has failed and our focus very much is on an ambition for the UK with the EU to seek to build an ambitious free trade agreement that has not been attempted in services anywhere else in the world. But we believe it should be attempted in the current context, simply because of the importance of the cross-dependencies that already exist and the fact that we are starting with a fully converged rulebook, which is extremely unusual in a trade negotiation context. So we believe that there is the prospect of an ambitious mutual recognition-based trade agreement in services between the UK and the EU and that potentially should be the first focus, to the extent that we are talking about prioritisation of negotiation of trade agreements.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Presumably you are talking about services with the EU during transition, given what you said previously about the short period of time between now and leave day.

Stephen Jones: I think we are talking about beyond transition. From a transition perspective, the only realistic thing that we believe can be achieved is a prolongation of the acquis, which is a full adoption of the existing rule book lock, stock and barrel. The chances of seeking to amend or renegotiate that in the time that is available are wholly unrealistic, and what is far more important is certainty through the transition period. The only way you can deliver that certainty is simply to take forward the existing rule book.

[Bill Esterson]

Q I do not know whether you heard the earlier evidence. Some witnesses have made points about the shortage of time, but they have also said there is a tension between time and getting it right. Given the short period of time, do you see a danger that agreement without a degree of scrutiny leaves problems that will be very hard to undo later?

Stephen Jones: In terms of the prolongation of the acquis—that is, the adoption of rules on day one—in a sense those rules are already on for the purposes of transition. Those rules have already been adopted by the UK. I recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and the importance of scrutiny, but to the extent that the rules are not being changed we are simply extending arrangements that continue to exist. The Bill’s provisions relating to Ministers’ 10-year power to use secondary legislation to renegotiate those rules strike me as pretty broad-brush, and they potentially should benefit from greater parliamentary scrutiny than is currently contemplated.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Just so I get this right and we do not misquote you, anything that carries on beyond 29 March 2019 must carry on with no changes to meet the requirements that you have just set out.

Stephen Jones: Broadly, I do not think it is realistic to expect changes. In that context, the secondary legislation ministerial power provisions are broadly acceptable, but beyond that, to the extent that arrangements are adapted to the UK as an independent country with its own trade policy, I would suggest that they merit parliamentary scrutiny.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Do any other witnesses want to pick up any of those points?

William Bain: The nature of the transition impinges on terms in the Bill, and the retail industry is keen to have a standstill transition in all elements—in terms of the current customs rules, the current tariff rules and the current SPS rules—but it also applies to the trade facilitation that we get from the bilateral trade agreements, which fit into part 1 of the Bill. I cannot stress how important it is to the retail sector, which imports products from countries like Chile, Peru, South Africa and Turkey, that we do not have a discontinuity in our trading arrangements at any stage after 29 March 2019. There are some connections and points of commonality with the kind of transitional deal that is done, but in a sense this is a slightly separate question. It really demands clear attention from the Government in order to get the job done by 29 March next year.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I want to pursue what Mr Jones said. We have got away from the initial question of the sift Committee. You stressed the urgency of this and the need to try to get things through as quickly as possible, and you adopted an approach to delegated powers and Henry VIII powers of, “Well, maybe they’re necessary in the circumstances”. However, it was your organisation that recommended that there should be a sift Committee in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Would that not be an appropriate way of trying to say, “What we’re talking about here is a minor change to an existing agreement, but this is actually a major change”?

We are talking about 100 separate agreements between the EU and Switzerland alone, some of which include free movement of people. There are going to be some major changes, such as those we talked about with Turkey and the customs union, and with Norway, free movement of people and the four freedoms. Do you not think, given that you have already recommended a sift Committee in one form, that a similar sort of mechanism for trying to distinguish between what is and what is not vital, and what should have parliamentary scrutiny, is a sensible way to proceed?

Stephen Jones: Yes, sorry; forgive me for the lack of clarity. My reference was really to the existing provisions between the UK and the EU in relation to financial services. In my assessment, for the purposes of transition and of business services in financial services, the chances of change, and therefore of the need for sift, are zero. There just is not the time. In the context of other areas, where there is an assessment that change is possible, the sift Committee strikes me as a very sensible mechanism to prioritise and assess those changes and the degree of scrutiny that is required.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I hope the Government will listen to the overwhelming case that has been well made on both sides of the House—including by speaker after speaker on the Government Back Benches—for action on behalf of small businesses in our constituencies.

We started with a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and I commend him and the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance for bringing this issue forward. I also thank all Members who have taken part in the debate and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield).

When Carillion went bust at the start of the week, it struck me that there were similarities with the way that RBS treated its small business customers. In both cases, smaller businesses—Carillion’s suppliers and RBS customers—have been imperilled by the actions of much larger players. I know of at least one business that, having been put into GRG, is still in the successor division, years later, and as of this week is owed tens of thousands by Carillion that it is never going to receive. It is not good enough. The mistreatment of smaller firms must stop.

The news that banks are to provide additional support for Carillion’s suppliers is of course welcome, but this must not be just a short-term, headline-grabbing announcement. It must mean longer-term support, of the sort that was sorely lacking in RBS GRG and of the kind that was put in place by the Labour Government to support suppliers with the creation of the taskforce following the collapse of Rover in 2005. That is a good example for Ministers to follow.

What happened at RBS GRG was nothing short of a scandal and a disaster for the victims. Businesses were ruined, families were torn apart and people took their own lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central reminded us of the criminal convictions at Lloyds HBOS. There are many—some mentioned it today—who believe criminal investigations to be the appropriate way forward at RBS GRG. Justice is a vital step in the long process of rebuilding trust in business lending, which in 2016 was still so low that only 9% of smaller firms approached their bank to borrow money—and they did not all borrow. It is crucial to the success of our economy that there is a healthy relationship between the banks and smaller firms. We need our smaller firms to play their full part in contributing to the prosperity of this country. Relationships of trust are crucial.

The next Labour Government will introduce a network of regional development banks to support smaller firms, but those firms also need the help of the traditional banking sector and they need it now. Let us remember that, according to the Promontory report, 83% of businesses that were put into GRG were the subject of inappropriate treatment. Two thirds of businesses were viable, yet depending on which figures we look at, only 5% or 10% survived the process. The figure for inappropriate treatment of those who were potentially viable is higher, at 92%.

According to the then head of global markets, RBS decided to exit non-core markets. In practice, that meant getting businesses off its books as fast as possible, not by telling its business customers so that they could move to a new bank, but by putting them into intensive care—or rather, a slaughterhouse or mortuary, or on death row, to borrow the phrases used by my hon. Friends—charging exorbitant fees, using their own valuations and using interest rate-hedging products. Then there was the freezing of personal bank accounts, something that happened to my constituent John Pile. Mr Pile had never previously missed a mortgage payment on his commercial properties, yet the result for him and his family was the bank claiming that he had defaulted, despite having substantial sums of money in his personal account, which was frozen. He could have used that money, but was prevented from doing so by the same bank.

Customers who were making decent profits, whose rental incomes were well in excess of their interest payments, were put into GRG on the spurious grounds that their loan-to-values had suddenly dropped, on the basis of revaluations carried out by the bank’s own valuers. Then there was the overnight demand of repayment of overdrafts that were a key part of the day-to-day operations of many businesses. This was not proper turnaround practice—it was not turnaround practice at all for the customers. It was more like the turnaround of the bank at the expense of its customers. Perhaps the name, Global Restructuring Group, was a clue. It was a division responsible for the restructuring of the bank, not the small businesses that banked there.

Which brings me to the call for a full independent inquiry. Promontory carried out part one of its investigation for the Financial Conduct Authority. RBS does not want the report published, although much of it is now in the public domain, but nor does RBS want Promontory to carry out part two. Instead of sticking to its guns, the FCA has complied with the demands of the bank that it is supposed to regulate and gone for the in-house option. The suspicion will remain that such an approach means a lack of independence on RBS by its regulator. We know that the FCA is afraid of legal action if it publishes part one of the Promontory report because it told the Treasury Committee that, but it will simply not help to rebuild trust if the regulator is in fear of a bank and feels restricted in its ability to provide full oversight.

There are still many questions to be answered. Why were viable business customers put into GRG? At Ulster Bank, a substantial part of its business was deemed non-core and its customers were nearly all put into GRG. Meanwhile, there are disturbing parallels at other banks, affecting Dunbar Bank business customers and Acorn Finance, and we also heard about Bibby. They all tell a similar story to the RBS GRG story. Why did RBS not tell its customers when they were no longer core business and give them the chance to move to other banks? Who in management knew? Where was the oversight in the Treasury? Promontory says that management knew, so when will those responsible be held accountable? Why did GRG not follow turnaround procedures? This all needs to be in the public domain and properly acknowledged.

Until those questions are answered and those responsible held accountable, the victims will be denied justice, we will remain at 9% of smaller businesses asking their banks about borrowing money, and investment, productivity and prosperity will all be undermined. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South says in the motion, the call, which has been well evidenced today, is for a robust system of dispute resolution. It is needed to overcome the imbalance of power in the relationship between smaller firms and their banks. That is also why the call for an inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by financial institutions and the protections afforded to them is the right call. And yes, it should look at all banks, not just RBS. No one else can intervene and ensure fair treatment. The regulator has had to restrict its activities under RBS pressure. Unless and until the Government intervene, this injustice and the long-term economic effects will continue to hold back a crucial part of our economy.

The issue of how RBS GRG treated its smaller business customers will not go away. The victims will not go away. Those of us across the House who want to see justice will not go away. The Government must now ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

Draft Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the Insolvency (amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2017

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I welcome the Whip, who I understand is taking the place of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge because she is unable to join us for family reasons in what are sad circumstances. I am sure that he will deputise for her extremely well. He was certainly very brief in his comments. I suspect that I shall be slightly less brief, but here goes.

The Government made some significant changes to insolvency law in 2015 through the Deregulation Act and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, and in 2016 through the Insolvency (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland). The Government’s intention in making the changes was to decrease undue regulation and reduce cost. However, the primary legislation that enacted the changes was not applicable to all kinds of financial services, as the Minister said, because such organisations tend to have special insolvency regimes, given their unique position.

The Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument today, but we have some specific concerns about the provisions, which I hope the Minister will be able to address. The regulations extend section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015, which made changes to the licensing regime for insolvency practitioners, to financial services. Previously, practitioners were granted an insolvency licence that allowed them to act in relation to both corporate and personal insolvency cases.

My concern is that bankruptcy is very different from corporate insolvency. As some insolvency practitioners have pointed out, if someone acts only on bankruptcy, how can they understand corporate insolvency? Likewise, if someone has been doing corporate insolvencies all their life, how can they understand adequately what is involved for a sole trader or a partnership, or for personal bankruptcy as a whole? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s analysis of that point.

A question was asked in the Deregulation Public Bill Committee about the impact on the quality of professional work of requiring practitioners to pass only one part of the insolvency exams. It is an extremely rigorous set of qualifications. I worked for an insolvency practitioner a very long time ago, and the qualified insolvency practitioners in the firm generally came from a cohort of which only 2% passed the professional exams, such are the high standards in the profession. There has been great concern about the impact of these changes on the profession.

Similarly, the Opposition had serious concerns about section 118 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which is also extended to financial services through this statutory instrument. That section amended the Insolvency Act 1986 to allow a liquidator or administrator to assign causes of action that arise on a company going into liquidation or administration. Opposition Members said of the section:

“This clause would allow the office holder to assign not only the right of action but the proceeds of such action. By ensuring that the purchaser would stand to gain fully from potential benefits arising from the action, alongside bearing all the risk and cost of pursuing the claim, the Government are assuming that a clear incentive will be created to pursue more wrongdoers. The clause may well deliver in that regard. However, there may be other, unintended consequences.”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 4 November 2014; c. 445.]

I would be grateful if the Minister gave us examples of how the section has been implemented thus far to help us understand its extension to financial services.

The statutory instrument includes measures to support unsecured creditors, but may I ask about the impact on staff? Staff are ring-fenced in insolvency proceedings and have been for some time, but there is a limit to how much money is recovered for redundancy payments during insolvencies. We have seen that in high-profile examples, such as BHS and Comet. I had a Comet store in my constituency, so I know how much money staff members were still owed after the Government-backed scheme was exhausted. Will the changes to the support for unsecured creditors make any difference in helping staff to recover the excess amounts not covered by the Government schemes, or is this just a more general set of changes for unsecured creditors?

Similarly, there is the opportunity for administrators to take action against directors for fraudulent or wrongful trading. Will the Minister give us examples of where the provisions that have already been approved outside financial services have been applied? That will indicate whether there will be successful additional action when they apply to financial services.

I mentioned two high-profile cases, but there are a number of others. There is great concern inside and outside Parliament about the actions of some directors. Philip Green is a notable example; we are all familiar with his having agreed a sum of £363 million out of a £571 million pension shortfall. Is that an example, or are there other examples, of where the changes in regulations will enable action to be taken against directors to ensure that they act in the way that most people would expect them to? Do the terms “fraudulent or wrongful trading” cover those sorts of examples? Can we be given some assurance that the changes, which the Opposition broadly welcomed when the original legislation was passed, have started to create the intended improvements and have been helpful in supporting creditors and ensuring that directors take a more responsible attitude to business?

With those remarks and questions, I am happy to say that we broadly support the changes that have been introduced. We were pleased that the Government introduced them at the time. Having put our concerns on record, I look forward to the answers. We will not oppose the regulations.

[The Chair]

Of course, this is Parliament and I want to encourage as full a debate as possible, but for the guidance of Members, we are expecting a series of votes in about nine or 10 minutes.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his broad support for the regulations, which essentially focus on tidying up measures relating to the financial services sector. He referred to Philip Green. The focus of the regulations is to target not the retail sector as a whole, but the financial sector specifically.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. In the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, I will answer them as best I can. First, he referred to section 17 of the Deregulation Act 2015 and the difference between bankruptcy and corporate insolvency. He asked whether those who are trained to act on one will understand the other. The key point is that we intend that there will be a general paper, and that people can specialise within that. We are separating out the authorisations to allow insolvency practitioners to specialise in one or the other, but there will still be an initial general paper covering both.

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to provide clarification and further detail on his points about fraudulent or wrongful activity and the extension to financial services. The key point to make to the Committee is that we have had a much wider debate on the changes that are being made to insolvency, and I do not want to revisit that wider debate today. We are here to debate the specific impact on financial stability and how we amend the legislation to fit with those wider reforms.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the impact on staff and the extent to which we ring-fence for insolvency procedures. He mentioned the Comet case specifically, which I know caused numerous concerns. The reforms are intended to benefit creditors by removing red tape. Therefore, as far as insolvency procedures are concerned, staff are often creditors and will benefit from the reforms. I hope that that reassures him that where instances like Comet arise in future, there will be some benefits from this exercise.

I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration—

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister kindly offered to write to me on one matter. Perhaps when he does, he could flesh out some of the other points a little more. In particular, can he give details of how staff will benefit, rather than the more general point that he just made? I appreciate that he is probably not in a position to tell me that in detail now, so perhaps that will be an opportunity to address the point more fully.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with a much fuller example, and I commit to writing to him on that basis.

Subject to there being no further comments from Members, I am very grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations today and for the points that have been made. In summary, the regulations make consequential amendments to the special insolvency procedures for financial sector firms to take account of the reforms that we have discussed. I ask the Committee to support the changes.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The Government will, of course, consider all proposals for infrastructure investment on their merits. When the industrial strategy Green Paper is published, it will set out the Government’s approach to prioritising infrastructure to support the economy.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

When the Chancellor considers the effect of bringing in quarterly reporting, will he look at the figures showing that only 25% of our smaller businesses have maintained electronic accounting records and that 38% lack basic digital skills? Will he listen to what the Chair of the Treasury Committee said when he described this as a potential “disaster”?

[Jane Ellison]

I always listen to what the Chairman of the Treasury Committee says. I am considering the Committee’s very useful report carefully. Of course, it acknowledged that the digitisation of the tax service represents the direction in which we should be travelling, but we are looking carefully at the possible impacts on small businesses, many thousands of which we have already exempted through our existing announcements.