Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

Q You are buying a service to reach the same number of eyeballs. The process does not have greater reach. You said that, to achieve the same outcome as a facilitating business, they charge 30% to 40% more. Why doesn’t everyone use Bing?

Tom Smith: You may have seen yesterday that the European Commission is threatening to break up Google in the ad-tech business. The European Commission is formally alleging that Google is abusing its dominant position in ad tech. That is on the display side of the business. On the search side, Google has a 90%-plus market share in this country. It is a must-have product, and people are buying that product. There are lots of allegations about why it should be able to sustain such prices, but I do not want to make an unfounded allegation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q We have put subscription traps in the Bill. I will ask the same question I asked Mr Burrus earlier: do you see anything in the legislation that would make it difficult for companies that currently operate on a subscription basis to comply with what we have set out?

Tom Smith: No, I do not think so. In fact, one of the problems with subscriptions that are operated through mobile devices is that Apple inserts itself and Google inserts itself in between the developer and the customer. If you are a British person who subscribes to an app and then something goes wrong or you want to cancel your subscription, quite naturally you might want to contact the developer, such as Tinder or whatever other developer—you are talking to Mr Buse later. At that point the developer has to say, “I’m terribly sorry; you might think you are dealing with us, but you have a contract with Apple,” and that is a major source of complaints. It is pretty confusing for consumers.

Asylum Reception Centre: Linton-on-Ouse

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Kevin Hollinrake

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member raises a good point. The first tranche of 60 people—service users, as they are called by the Home Office—are due to move in in seven days’ time. There was an indication by the Home Office today that that might be delayed. We do not know by how long yet, but nevertheless, none of the plan for mental health support, GP support or dental support has yet been articulated. The police plan has not yet been articulated. It is simply wrong. We are going far too quickly with this. We need to slow down, pause, look again, consult properly and make sure that we have mitigations in place.

I was on the call with the police and the Home Office today, and the police came out with the phrase that they use, that they want to keep people safe and for people to feel safe. Neither of those things do people in Linton-on-Ouse feel. People do not feel safe. I think those fears are rational; they are not irrational fears. In any cohort of 1,500 young single men, there will be some who do not play by the rules. The vast majority will, but that is of little comfort to people genuinely in fear of their lives and wellbeing. I have had children as young as nine writing to me and meeting me at these public meetings saying how panic stricken they are. I have had elderly residents saying that they have lost the sale of their home and they are in ill health, including one lady whose husband is in ill health. This issue is changing lives today.

Crucially, one thing that has not been considered at all—this was the subject of an exchange of correspondence with the Home Office only yesterday—is what happens to existing service personnel in accommodation on the site and in the village. According to the Home Office, they have been given an option to move elsewhere, but that should not need to be the case. What happens with someone in the armed forces, currently or previously, who has already bought a house in the village of Linton-on-Ouse? I speak with some experience in the property market, and there is little chance of selling any house in Linton-on-Ouse at the moment. We are basically saying to service personnel or former service personnel who live in the village—it is commonly known where they live, and it may be that some of these service users hold a grudge against service personnel who have fought in Iraq and elsewhere—that a grudge held against them might put their lives in peril. No consideration has been made of that. It cannot be right that the Home Office is not showing a reasonable duty of care.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has spoken of some 60 or 70 service users due to arrive next week. That is already 10% of the entire population of the village. Can he clarify whether this will be a closed facility? Will there be any management of ingress and egress, or will the service users be widely open to move around the population at will?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a good question; I should have touched on that earlier. It is a non-detained site, so the service users—asylum seekers—will be able to leave the site and return at will. There will be some management of that on the door to get the name of who is leaving and who is coming back, although there is always a concern that people will get out by other means as it is a very big site, but the point is that they are non-detained. There is an informal curfew at 10 pm, so there is no requirement for them to come back. Safeguarding calls will be made to them after 10 o’clock if they are not back, but there is no limitation on the number of times that they can leave the site. In fact, they can go and stay overnight elsewhere. They are free to come and go, which is clearly a big concern for the village.

I am sure that this is not the Home Office’s intention, but it appears to me that the village is collateral damage of a wider policy. It cannot be right to put the whole burden of a single national policy, however important it is, on one small community wherever it is in the UK—whether it is in my constituency or not. This is not about my popularity locally or my majority. I know many people in the village and was at school with many of them. It is simply unfair, it is simply wrong and Ministers must think again.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means)

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Kevin Hollinrake

Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I do not. The UK Government have to take a number of matters into consideration. They have a collective position. Clearly, we cannot always get exactly what we want in terms of negotiation. My point is that we could have done better in these negotiations and there could have been less drama around them. The fact that these negotiations are concluding so close to the deadline for businesses has been brought about partly because of the divided nature of this Parliament. The hon. Lady and the Opposition should take responsibility for that position.

My point about a fair and level playing field is about the fact that many of our small businesses in the UK compete with online platforms—online marketplaces, as they are called—such as Amazon and eBay. How can it be right that for so long many of those small businesses have been competing at a 20% disadvantage? Many retailers selling into the UK are not paying VAT on those sales. I am pleased that the Government have acted on this and closed the loophole. They have closed a number of loopholes in recent years through measures such as the digital services tax and the diverted profits tax. This creates the fairer and more level playing field for the rest that I very much welcome. There is one more loophole that we could close, not in this legislation, but in the Financial Services Bill, which is going through Parliament at the same time.

Country-by-country reporting would also have a profound effect in closing loopholes that some companies are using to divert profits out of this country.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The Government are making an important point in this Bill in starting to look at online retailers facilitating the sale and that is making a difference, particularly with international trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be expanded beyond just VAT into things like the extent of producer responsibility and other aspects of international trade?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, I do. We all know that the best way of driving down prices and driving service for our consumers—our citizens—is through a free, competitive marketplace. Our job, wherever we can, is to let that marketplace do its work. Our job is also to make sure that it sits on a fair and level playing field. My hon. Friend, in talking about regulation for some of the retailers—some of the UK businesses but not businesses abroad—makes a very sound point that the Government should consider.

Going back to country-by-country reporting, let me give an example. Google’s turnover in the UK is about £10 billion. We can work that out by extrapolating certain figures from a couple of years ago. Internationally, it declared a 22% profit margin, which means a £2.2 billion profit in the UK. Based on corporation tax at 19%, it should pay £420 million in tax on that. Last year it actually paid £67 million in tax. That cannot be a fair and level playing field for other UK retailers or other UK companies that compete against Google, particularly in terms of advertising space—many of our regional papers, for example. I would like the Government to bring forward legislation, in some vehicle or other, to tackle that issue.

I am very pleased that this loophole is being closed and I very much commend the principles and the outline of the legislation that we will see tomorrow.

Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—in particular, my significant shareholding in a business that has received a CBIL.

We have heard about the Government’s actions. We have heard about the enormous numbers that are involved, which were referred to directly by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), and about how they are just fantasy numbers because they are outside the essence of our individual experience. It is just for the same for me. Big numbers mean little to most people, because we do not really understand them in our normal lives.

However, I have a very real experience of the transformative effect of the CBIL system. Prior to entering this place, I was the managing director of, and a significant shareholder in, a seasonal tourism-based leisure business of just the kind that we have heard so much about over the past six to nine months. It operates in 34 locations right across the United Kingdom, employing people in Scotland and in Wales as well as in England. In March this year, we had weathered our planned seasonal losses over the winter. The business had been invested in and had recruited a large number of staff, looking forward to Easter trading. It was an irony not lost on me and everyone else who was employed in the business that the lockdown was announced in the very week of our minimum cash flow in the entire year, by which I mean that we had the least amount of money to respond to an economic shock. As a result, the lockdown was an immediate existential crisis for that business, which employs up to 1,000 people in this country and 250 to 350 people in the United States of America.

Without doubt, the CBIL that we were able to obtain within a matter of weeks saved the business from the risk of collapse. It bought time. It cushioned the cash-flow blow—this crisis is primarily about cash flow—and allowed space for the business to adapt, survive, and then, I am very pleased to say, absolutely to thrive now, although I recognise that that is not the experience of an awful lot of other businesses in the sector. The Chancellor’s intervention directly saved hundreds of jobs and careers. Let us not forget now how fast the Government acted—and thank goodness they did, because without that, the economic damage to this country would have been so much greater.

In a previous debate, I highlighted what I considered to be one of the key weaknesses of the CBIL scheme. As we plan to grow out of the crisis phase and into the economic growth phase, we need our recovery to be led by businesses that have cash to invest, creating new products, investing in growth, increasing efficiencies, exploring new markets and, importantly, creating employment. To do this, they need access to cash, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has identified, at a time when the unwinding of the CBIL loans, with their straight line capital repayment scheme after the first 12 months, means that cash will actively be withdrawn—at that stage, in a one sixth per annum phase, but most likely, in reality, between two and five years. That would be taking money out of the productive economy just at the time when we want these businesses to be investing in growth. I was therefore delighted—and impressed, frankly—when the Chancellor announced recently the increased flexibility in interest and capital repayment requirements and increased the maximum period of capital repayment from six to 10 years. At a stroke, this almost halves the capital repayment requirements for businesses, it frees up a really significant sum of money to be reinvested in growth, and it focuses exactly on the businesses that are able to do it.

However, there is one further point that I hope the Treasury will look into. Lending banks currently have their covid loans sitting on their balance sheets, albeit supported by the Government’s partial guarantee. This reduces their capacity, and their appetite, to lend further to support the business-led recovery. I ask the Minister whether the Government could develop a scheme to allow these covid loan books to be sold to institutional investors via a special purpose vehicle, because this would provide long-term, very low-risk, fixed-income investments that are sought by pension funds, for example, particularly if the resulting coupon was tax-free. I know that is an ask of the Treasury, but it would ensure the success of the scheme.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but one of the mistakes we have made in past years is allowing the sale of loan books to very aggressive companies that pursue those loans and repayments in the most inappropriate way for SMEs. Does he propose some kind of restrictions on who those can be sold to?

[Jerome Mayhew]

It would be an unwise legislator who had not learned from the financial crisis of 2008-09. It would require regulation and careful oversight by the Bank of England, I suggest, but we should not throw the policy baby out with the execution bathwater. This suggestion is something the Treasury should look into, and I encourage it to do so, because in return the lending banks would have their balance sheets reflated and their risk removed from the sector, encouraging them to support business investment and recovery further. When Government finances are stretched as never before, the suggestion has the merit of allowing the market to provide much needed capital for growth and not the Treasury.

There is no doubt that the Government have invested massively and effectively in supporting our business community and the jobs, importantly, that they support, through the swathe of schemes that have been discussed today, most recently with the Chancellor’s announcement this afternoon of the extension of the furlough scheme. It gives me great confidence that the Government remain committed to the business sector and supporting them to lead the future economic recovery.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); we have spoken in many debates on business issues before and he is a huge champion of business. It was also a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). It is great to have another Conservative northern Member of Parliament to champion the cause of the northern powerhouse. He neglected to mention Yorkshire, and particularly north Yorkshire, in his list of areas in the north that will contribute to the recovery, but I will have a word later. It was a fantastic speech.

I draw the House’s attention—of course, in all these types of debates—to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am still involved in business to this day. I am also the chair of the all-party group on fair business banking, which has talked about many of these issues over the last months and years. In my view, the CBILS and BBLS are a huge success, but there are problems, particularly with the CBILS, in terms of making sure that banks do allow money to go out the door based upon the business being a viable business on 1 March. There are still issues about banks assessing the ability of the business to pay the loan back over a period of time. In particular, there are sector-based issues—football clubs being one and house builders being another. Banks seem to be translating from a standard lending policy into a CBILS lending policy, which cannot be right. That was never the intention of the Government scheme.

On the Bill, I am a strong supporter of the measures being brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, particularly on the moratorium and the opportunity to restructure. That has been planned for some time to give businesses breathing space. Irrespective of the covid crisis, at any point in time, many businesses can be salvaged through this process. It has happened in the US for many years—it is known as chapter 11—and it is absolutely the right thing to do.

I will not talk in detail about the Bill, because many others have, but I will talk about some of the things that I think we need, as well as this legislation, that would make a significant difference. There are some outstanding issues that the Minister and the Department are aware of and they have consulted on some of them, particularly about moving from a self-regulation basis for insolvency practitioners to a single, truly independent regulator. There are some very important issues that we have seen over recent years in terms of conflicts of interest that will carry on despite the Bill. The moratorium and the opportunity to restructure will help to some extent, but the conflicts of interest will carry on. This is particularly because most insolvency practitioners who are appointed to carry out work on an insolvent business are appointed by the major creditor, which tends to be the bank. It is a panel appointment by the bank and clearly, people rarely bite the hand that feeds. So if most of the work that the insolvency practitioner—who is supposed to work independently of any individual creditor and in the best interests of all creditors—is getting is from the banks, they are more likely, in our experience, to work in the interests of the bank.

It is even worse than simply the facts of what happens in the insolvency. On many occasions, we are talking about large accountancy practices, such as KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst and Young, who are appointed by the banks prior to insolvency, for example, to carry out a supposedly independent business review—paid for by the business but instructed by the bank. They have been brought in to do an independent business review, which is supposed to give a fair representation of the business, and that accountancy practice then becomes the insolvency practitioner and can earn hundreds of thousands of pounds of fees in the insolvency, which is a clear conflict of interest.

This issue has been brought up for decades in this House. I found two debates in 1999 when this conflict of interest was mentioned. It is something we need to deal with. This has featured in many of the issues we have seen over the last decade or so, particularly around the last crisis, where we had tens of thousands of businesses that were put into administration by the banks—this is a matter of public record—particularly by RBS and Lloyds Banking Group. Tens of thousands of businesses were put into insolvency inappropriately. A fair percentage —around 20%—of those businesses were viable, but there is not one instance of an insolvency practitioner deciding to sue the bank and saying, “Your business has gone into receivership as a result of creditor misconduct.” In other words, the bank is forcing the business into administration. Never has there been a case in which an insolvency practitioner who is supposedly independent and working for all the creditors has said, “There is something wrong. We need to take the bank to task.” There has not been one instance. We have pushed for information, and we have received emails from accountancy practices saying, “We would never sue a bank—we would never litigate—because of the conflict of interest.” There is a huge conflict of interest, and huge sums lie at the heart of this.

We are talking about thousands of businesses in this situation. This is systemic for every bank and almost every insolvency practitioner, but I should like to discuss a particular case, because it reveals the nature of the issue. We are talking about tens of thousands of businesses, and we have to understand that there are tens of thousands of people—individuals—whose life’s work has been taken from them, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs. These are very serious issues.

The case I wish to raise is that of Arthur Holgate and Son. This is not a sub judice issue, and I have obtained consent from the business to discuss it. It is a tangible example of the problems that arise. It was a family-owned business that ran caravan parks and turned over about £2 million. It was a significant business that, like a lot of other businesses, sold a swap that put it in danger, which increased the cost of loan servicing a great deal. That became the matter of a redress scheme, because of the inappropriate sale of complex financial instruments to businesses that were not sophisticated.

When that came to light, with a route for redress, the business approached the scheme and was offered £300,000 in compensation, despite the fact that its losses totalled £1.4 million. Ultimately the business failed and went into administration. It was taken off the owners—it had been in the family for generations—but it was one of the few businesses that we have come across that had the financial wherewithal and tenacity to get this thing through to court. On the courtroom steps, compensation was settled at about £10 million by Barclays bank.

We need to look at the actions of the insolvency practitioner as well as the actions of Barclays bank. Despite the fact that the insolvency practitioner is supposed to work independently, it did not do so. It colluded in bringing about the failure of the business and as a result the distribution of assets from the business effectively went to them and to the banks. Deloitte was the insolvency practitioner. This is not an isolated case: Deloitte was fined this year for its administration of Comet—many Members will remember that—and it was given a £1 million fine for failing to manage a conflict of interest in that case. We need to deal with this, as we are not dealing with it in the legislation.

Deloitte was brought in to undertake an independent business review for the bank to see whether the business was viable and able to get through its financial difficulties. It charged the business £50,000 for that work, which was paid after the business was declared insolvent on a preferred creditor basis, which is against the law.

There are many concerns, but the most disgraceful part of this case was the correspondence between Barclays and Deloitte. Barclays effectively told Deloitte to ignore the directors, although they were running the business and knew it best. In fact, I can quote from one of the emails sent internally in Deloitte, which said: “Be careful of swallowing the Paul Holgate line”—Paul Holgate being one of the directors of the business—“that it’s somebody else’s fault”. He kept saying to them, “It’s not our fault that we are in this position. This is because the bank sold us a swap.” He was right, but Deloitte deliberately did not put that information in the business review and did not even mention the swap at that point in time or when the insolvency happened. Another email sent internally in Deloitte said, “We do not want to appear critical of the bank.” That is because of the conflict of interest, and it cannot be right.

We must put a Chinese wall between consultancy work that a bank requires an accountant to do and that very accountant then being able to do the insolvency work, because there is a clear conflict of interest. In this case, there were fees of £400,000 for Deloitte to carry out the insolvency work. Had it just done the £50,000 report and said, “This business is fine. It’s actually your fault because of the swap. If you settle that problem, the business will carry on trading fine,” Deloitte would have got £50,000, and that would have been it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend talks very persuasively about this, and I have found myself nodding along to everything he has been saying for the last several minutes, but he keeps on referring to a conflict of interest, when surely what he is talking about is better named corruption.