Thomas Cook Customers

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

As your next-door-but-one constituency neighbour, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election?

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She is right to raise these matters today, because they raise serious questions that will need far more attention in the new Parliament, whichever Minister is at the Dispatch Box. I also have some questions today to take this forward.

In her statement, the Secretary of State mentioned a “high aggregate amount”. Can she tell us more about what that is? On the question about audit, to which I will return shortly, will she tell us why no regulation was in place to ensure that this serious weakness did not materialise? I should also like to put on record my thanks to all those involved in bringing 140,000 holiday- makers home.

We welcome the fact that the online services have now been bought, and that shops in the constituencies of Members across the House are being reopened by Hays Travel, but why oh why did Thomas Cook have to close first, and why were the opportunities that were given to the shops and online services not given to the airline? Intervention to ensure the retention of those viable parts of the business would have been a major step towards addressing the serious weaknesses that the Secretary of State identified in her statement. The Government were told at the time that parts of the business were successful, and Hays Travel clearly agreed because it bought the shops. There is also value in the brand, which is why the online business has been recovered. Could the airline have been saved, as the ones in Germany and Scandinavia were, if the liquidation had been delayed?

Why did the Government not listen to those calling for intervention? Why did they not take a stake in the company, so that the shops and digital business could have been transferred while still trading and so that other parts of the business could have been saved? Let us remember that the Turkish and Spanish Governments wanted to step in. They saw the potential value, but our Government did not. Had our Government intervened, the hardship to which the Secretary of State rightly referred could have been identified and possibly avoided. Does she regret her failure to speak to the company and to intervene to protect the jobs and rights of workers? Had the company continued trading, with the Government holding a stake, the rights of workers would have been protected. It is good news that staff will now have jobs with Hays Travel, but will they be paid for the time since Thomas Cook closed? Will their rights from their years of service be protected? Are staff being TUPE-ed over, or not?

What can the Secretary of State tell us about her response to the warnings about auditor conflicts of interest? She mentioned audit responsibility and potential failure in her statement. Auditing conflicts of interest have been repeatedly identified at Carillion, at BHS, in the banks and now at Thomas Cook. Has she read the excellent report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, and what is her response to its recommendations, including its calls for a new regulator and for the audit profession to be proactive rather than reactive? Why is the Secretary of State so resistant to change? The Competition and Markets Authority wants action; why does not she?

What action is the Secretary of State taking to address the scandalous payment of bonuses to executives who have profited at the expense of workers and customers and who presumably have direct responsibility for the appalling hardship to which she has referred? Analysis by Unite and Syndex shows that £188 million in bridging loans would have prevented the liquidation. That would have allowed profitable parts of the business to be sold while still trading, and for workers’ rights to be protected. This would have supported the wider economy and communities, too.

The Government should be a partner of business, not stand apart from it. That means intervening and providing support where intervention stands a chance of succeeding. The more evidence emerges about the Thomas Cook collapse, the more it appears that the case for intervention was there to be made. If they would not intervene at Thomas Cook, exactly when would the Government intervene?

If the Secretary of State wants to avoid hardship for those covered by insurance, she needs to change her approach and her attitude to intervention. When she referred to a drop in the ocean in responding to a question from the shadow Business Secretary, she demonstrated that she did not agree with her predecessor, who said that reforms were needed to ensure a strong level of consumer protection and value for money for the taxpayer. He was right, was he not?

The Secretary of State said that the Thomas Cook approach was unacceptable and that support must be given to those severely impacted by its closure through no fault of their own. I agree, but the Government have failed Thomas Cook. They sat back and let it fold. Only proper reforms will make sure that catastrophic failures of this type do not happen again.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the Government’s efforts, particularly on the repatriation of customers stranded overseas and, of course, in the work, which I know through chairing the Government taskforce, to try to ensure that we get the best possible arrangements for Thomas Cook staff. He asks why the Government did not bail out Thomas Cook. He will be aware that, according to court reports, there was about £1.9 billion of debt on Thomas Cook’s balance sheet. It did approach Government looking for a loan facility of up to £250 million, but it is clear that, had the Government put that significant sum of taxpayers’ money into Thomas Cook, we would have ended up in the same position as we are in today. We would have had to repatriate those customers. We would have to have done exactly as we have done, but the taxpayer would have been £250 million worse off, so it was not an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. It is very sad that Thomas Cook went bust, but it is not right that Government should just bail out every business. Businesses need to stand on their own two feet.

The hon. Gentleman made some very important points about regulation. I can tell him that I wrote to the Financial Reporting Council asking it to prioritise as a matter of urgency consideration of an investigation into the audit of Thomas Cook’s 2018 accounts, as well as the conduct of its directors. He asked why the Government did not foresee this.

It was never envisaged that a UK tour operator would fail to insure itself fully to cover claims for personal accident or fail to ensure that it had ring fenced the funds to meet those liabilities so that they were safe if the company got into difficulty. The company has a legal obligation to cover personal injury claims arising from package holidays abroad, and that is why I have asked the official receiver to investigate, in particular, this aspect of the conduct of Thomas Cook’s directors.

Business of the House

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman often raises this incredibly important issue, and he is absolutely right to do so. The Government are determined to get a grip on the problem of serious violence, and he rightly points out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a summit on this subject on Monday. He will appreciate that the business of the House is not under the Government’s control on Monday in terms of statements and so on, but I will nevertheless take away his request and see what can be done.

As for his call for the Government to get a grip, that is exactly what the Government are doing. At the spring statement, the Chancellor announced £100 million for police and crime commissioners so that they can urgently divert resources to deal with serious crime. At a more strategic level, we have our serious violence task force, and our Offensive Weapons Bill will introduce new knife crime prevention orders that will help the police to prevent people from carrying knives. We are also extending stop-and-search powers, police forces are undertaking co-ordinated national weeks of action to tackle knife crime, and we are launching a consultation on a public health approach to tackling violent crime. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that this Government are absolutely determined to get a grip, but I will certainly take away his request for a statement following the summit.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The statutory instrument needed to create a new state aid regime after we leave the European Union was due to be debated in Committee on 25 February, but it was withdrawn at short notice. In the four and a half weeks since that date, several other statutory instruments have been laid and debated, including SIs from the Department responsible for state aid. Without a state aid regime that functions properly, businesses that rely on state aid, and those who work for them, will be in serious difficulty, and that will have a profoundly negative impact on our economy. Will the Leader of the House tell me why there has been such a long delay and when the SI is likely to be brought back and considered?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will know that that statutory incident has in fact been debated and agreed in the other place. As I said earlier, the programme of statutory instruments that we sought to finalise by the date of exit has been completed on time, and any others will be considered in good time for leaving the European Union, as necessary. To be clear, a statutory instrument may not be needed for exit day—I am not commenting on this particular one—but all the statutory instruments that need to be in place by exit day will be.

Business of the House

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right that sorting out our housing market is not just a priority for the Chancellor but a personal priority for the Prime Minister, who is determined to tackle the ever-increasing challenge facing young people trying to get on to the housing ladder, either by buying or renting. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as always, will find a way to raise this with the Chancellor before the Budget.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Yesterday, I wrote to the CEO of RBS, Ross McEwan, about my call for a judge-led inquiry into the bank’s treatment of smaller businesses. His reply was:

“I have no interest in supporting another investigation after four years of review.”

Many small business owners will regard Mr McEwan’s comment that he has no interest in their plight as dismissive and disrespectful, given the way so many have had their lives torn apart as a result of what the Financial Conduct Authority described as the inappropriate treatment of small and medium-sized enterprises. Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to respond to my request for a judge-led inquiry and to comment on what Mr McEwan has said?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would say that as City Minister I always found Ross McEwan to be incredibly sympathetic to the issues facing small businesses. [Interruption.] I just want to give an alternative view on that. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that there have been some appalling cases of banks failing to support small businesses. The FCA has looked at many specific cases and carried out quite an in-depth review, but if he has further specific cases, he should raise them with either the FCA or the City Minister.

Business of the House

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Teddy Taylor. I do not agree that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was at all confusing yesterday. I heard her say very clearly that, ideally, to address this issue more quickly, we will seek voluntary co-operation from social media organisations, because it takes longer to legislate. It is really important, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says, to explore means of reducing the appalling problem of cyber-bullying, which goes on all too frequently.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House spoke about universal credit just now. I have constituents who have waited more than 20 minutes, many of them more than once, to get through before they can even ask for a call-back. Will she please get a Minister to come to the House as soon as possible and announce the scrapping of the 55p charge? These people are in desperate need of money, which is the only reason why they are having to make the calls in the first place.

[Andrea Leadsom]

To be clear to the hon. Gentleman, the charge—I am not condoning it at all—is not a Government charge. The Government do not make money from these calls; the charge is made by phone providers, so his remedy of scrapping it is not a matter for the Government. I absolutely take on board his concern that people should not have to hold on for so long on those calls. As I said to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), 99% of applications are made online, and there are facilities in jobcentres to help people to log in online. It is absolutely vital that all of us, as constituency MPs, make it clear to our constituents that they can ask for a call-back, which would be free to them.

Business of the House

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we on this side of the House engaged very fully with those debates. In fact, there were equal numbers of Opposition and Government contributors—unlike on Tuesday, when there were only two or three Members from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition present to debate the incredibly important Finance Bill. Opposition Members need to be a bit careful. We are fully engaged with all matters in this House, but they seem to be cherry-picking the things that they feel give them political advantage.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Peel Ports has announced a massive investment of £750 million in rail freight at the Port of Liverpool. Will the Leader of the House ask Transport Ministers when the Government will match that investment in much-needed rail freight across the whole of the north of England? The private sector is playing its part; it is time for the Government to do the same.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have committed more to infrastructure than at any time in recent history—£49 billion since 2010, which is 17% up on the comparable period under the last Labour Government. We are investing more than £13 billion in the north of England’s transport infrastructure. From major new infrastructure schemes to local transport improvements, we are trying to transform journeys for passengers and drivers and to create the capacity that the north really does need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Many people in work are relying on benefits just to survive, and they are not paying tax, all of which contributes to the reason why the deficit has gone up more than the Minister, and her Government when they came in, promised. Today’s OECD report says countries that promote equality will grow and prosper. Will she accept that her Government have got it disastrously wrong for so many people and adopt the policies suggested by the OECD, including a higher rate of top tax?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I find it absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman can talk about the under- achievement of this Government. It is not by chance that our economy is the fastest growing in the G7; it is not by chance that there are 2 million more people in work in the private sector; and it is not by chance that there are now 2 million apprentices, as of today. It is extraordinary that the Opposition do not see that it is all about economic recovery, not interfering and borrowing more.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Bill Esterson and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely remark. I was going to resist the temptation to talk about early infant brain development, but I shall just spend 30 seconds on it now. I absolutely agree with him, but I feel that the money should be focused on nought to two-year-olds for the simple reason that a baby’s brain development is at its peak rate at between six and 18 months. That is when the frontal cortex grows as a result of a secure attachment to a loving carer. That loving attachment enables that part of the brain to put on a healthy growth spurt, giving the child the capacity for lifelong mental health even before they are a toddler. In the absence of such an attachment, intervention when the child is three or four is too late, so I absolutely agree that the extra money for the early years is important, but I think it is coming in too late and I would rather it was focused on the nought to two-year-olds to support families at a time when the outcomes for their baby matters so desperately. Once a baby reaches two years old, that opportunity is significantly reduced, so anything we do after that is already too late.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the brain development of young children, which is made very strongly in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), as I am sure she is aware. Given the point that she and others are making about the importance of Sure Start and early intervention generally, will she comment on the impact of removing ring-fencing? In Sefton, there is a 12.9% cut, as there is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in the borough of Hammersmith. The impact of that, along with all the other huge cuts, particularly in inner cities, has made it very difficult for councils to protect these services. Will she comment on the link between that and the need to protect services centrally if we are seriously to have a national strategy on protecting Sure Start and on early intervention?