Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

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

[Alok Sharma]

When we first launched CBILS there were a lot of concerns about how quickly the process was moving. I have been talking to banks individually and to senior managers in the banks, and I think that we are beginning to see movement. CBILS has had over 40,000 loans out of the door, and over 450,000 bounce-back loans have been made. If there are specific banks about which the hon. Gentleman has concerns—he, like all colleagues, is concerned about retaining employment in his constituency—I would be happy to take up those issues with him individually.

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

Because of the success of bounce-back loans—it is a much easier process to get a bounce-back loan than a CBILS loan—lots of businesses that need more than £50,000 have gone for a bounce-back loan as an interim step, but are restricted from taking a CBILS loan, as they can only have one or the other. Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing businesses to apply for a CBILS loan for a larger amount, subject to necessary lending criteria, then paying off the bounce-back loan so that they can get access to the finance that they need?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is possible to transfer loans between the bounce-back scheme and CBILS. I am happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is absolutely right—people cannot have one of each, so to speak, but I think that it is possible to make a transfer.

The measures set out in the Bill have been welcomed across the board by business representatives’ organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, R3—the insolvency and restructuring professionals trade association—and the Trades Union Congress. Some of the measures will take retrospective effect to provide as much relief to businesses as possible. To ensure that is the case, we have announced the dates from which the measures will begin.



Let me turn to corporate restructurings, and the package of permanent corporate restructuring measures, which have previously been consulted on. As colleagues know, they were consulted on in 2016, and then formed part of a wider consultation on corporate governance and insolvency published in 2018, so they have been consulted on in some detail. They will have immediate effect in helping companies get through the covid-19 emergency.

A number of time-limited provisions are there to cater for the immediate economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic. They have been added to the package and will be in place for a month after Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is of course right. By the way, I am delighted that he is back in the House, after a short absence. He brings a huge amount of experience in this area, as a result of his work in the private sector. The permanent measures have already been consulted upon, and they enjoy broad support. The temporary measures are of course temporary, and if we were to look to extend any of them, we would have to do so by way of regulation—we would have to come to the House with statutory instruments, and there would be an opportunity, if colleagues in the House felt it was not right to extend them, for them to voice their concerns. So I do think we have managed to get the balance right in this case. We want to ensure that the measures are put in place as quickly as possible, so that we are able to provide support to businesses in difficulty right now. In all the discussions that we have had with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his colleagues, we have always had a really constructive approach; I hope that is exactly what we will have today as well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I speak as a co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking, has dealt with a lot of problems in how banks treat SMEs, facilitated by insolvency practitioners. To eliminate those conflicts of interest, the Secretary of State’s Department has committed to bringing forward measures to provide that the conduct of insolvency practitioners is overseen by a single regulator, rather than by recognised professional bodies. Can he commit to bringing forward those measures in the not-too-distant future, so that we can try to eliminate those conflicts of interest?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will elaborate on some of the points that my hon. Friend raised. I would simply say that in July 2019, the Government issued a call for evidence on the insolvency regulatory framework, to determine whether any changes needed to be made. That included questions on whether there should be a single regulator. We expect to publish the Government response to the call for evidence later this year. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will elaborate later.

Returning to the Bill, the package of measures has three elements. The first is a moratorium. That will give a company that is threatened with insolvency temporary respite from its creditors and a chance to arrange refinancing or a rescue. The moratorium will be for an initial period of 20 days, which can then be extended. There will be a time-limited easing of the eligibility criteria for a company to enter into a moratorium, to make it more accessible during the covid-19 response period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

It is intended to apply to all suppliers—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong on that. As my hon. Friend has also been keen to point out, although this measure is not restricted to commercial landlords, some landlords will have particular concerns, and I can reassure him that the Government will monitor the impact of the measure and are asking lenders and investors to consider how debt obligations can be met in a way that does not put unnecessary pressure on landlords.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In respect of commercial loans, currently the banks, when showing forbearance, are providing capital repayment holidays but only on the capital element of the repayment. In respect of residential mortgages and loans, they are giving complete repayment holidays. The monthly capital repayment is a small element of the overall payment. The banks could be much more helpful to landlords by giving a complete holiday across the whole repayment for a period of time while showing forbearance to their tenants.

[Alok Sharma]

Colleagues in the banking sector will I am sure be watching this debate and listening in, and they will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I would be happy to have a discussion with him after this debate if there are particular points that he wants to raise or if he wants to talk about particular organisations.

The second temporary measure is the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions. This will be retrospective to 1 March and will be in place until one month after Royal Assent, and again it can be extended if that is deemed necessary. Hon. Members will know that wrongful trading is an important deterrent against company directors continuing to trade when the company is insolvent and when doing so increases the losses to creditors. Directors can be made personally liable as a result. However, during this difficult period, many otherwise viable companies may become technically insolvent, particularly if they have been severely affected by a drop in demand caused by covid-19. This measure gives company directors the confidence to use their best efforts to continue trading without the threat of personal liability, should the company ultimately go into insolvency. Since the measure was announced in March, we have received much support for it from stakeholders. The Institute of Directors has welcomed it, saying that it

“will help to avert entirely preventable corporate collapses.”

The Bill also contains the necessary time-limited powers to extend these temporary provisions, should that prove necessary.

The Bill will also allow the Government to make other temporary amendments to insolvency law or the new restructuring plan to deal with the effects of covid-19, where needed. The power to amend corporate insolvency or governance legislation will allow the insolvency and business rescue regime to react quickly to the challenges we face as a result of the impact of covid-19, and that power will expire on 30 April 2021. However, due to the potential unforeseen circumstances relating to covid-19, the expiry date of this power can be extended if it is deemed necessary. If an extension is sought, the House will of course have an opportunity to scrutinise it.

The next group of temporary measures deals with meetings and company filings. These measures enable companies and other bodies, including mutual societies and charitable incorporated organisations, to hold AGMs and other meetings in a safe way, while respecting social distancing rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I once used the word predatory in relation to companies and it was rather controversial, but I think the consensus may have changed. [Interruption.] Government Members are saying it has not; it was worth a try. The hon. Gentleman makes a really important substantive point on which I think Members from all parties can agree, and it goes to the width and breadth of this provision: we have to make sure that companies cannot use it as a way to take their employees for a ride. I know from my conversations with the Secretary of State and the Minister that the intention to make sure that that does not happen is shared throughout the House, but we have to give expression to it in the Bill, and I hope the Government will indeed do so.

Let me turn to some things that are not in the Bill—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Gentleman touched on his amendment that would ring-fence 30% of assets for unsecured creditors; is he not concerned that if we did that, people who are willing to extend finance to businesses on a secured basis may be less willing to lend?

[Edward Miliband]

I believe I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman knows a lot about this, and I congratulate him for his work on the all-party group dealing with the whole range of these issues, but I am talking about the situation after secured creditors and others have been dealt with. There is currently a provision for 20%, but up to a limit of £800,000. Our amendment seeks to make that 30%, and to raise the proportion, but remove the limit. We must ensure that we do all we can for employees and small businesses—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central will correct me if I have got those figures wrong, but I think I am broadly right.

Two sets of issues are not in the Bill, although we would have liked them to have been included, as I believe they are missed opportunities. First, in 2018 the Government consulted on a set of corporate governance safeguards in the wake of the scandal at Carillion, and indeed at Thomas Cook, which came after that. I understand that the Bill relates to the immediacy of the coronavirus crisis, but it would have been better if the Government had acted on those vital corporate governance issues in the Bill, and we would have supported them in doing so. Given that this crisis makes corporate distress more likely, it is strange that the Government have not chosen to introduce such measures. The risk is that we will get more Carillions and Thomas Cooks, with all the consequences of that for employees.

In 2018 the Government were committed to greater accountability of directors in group companies, legislation to enhance powers for insolvency practitioners, and further raising standards by ensuring an explanation about the affordability of dividend payments. Labour supports all those measures—indeed, we have tabled amendments to insert them into the Bill—and we do not think they cut across the need to protect businesses through the coronavirus crisis. Will the Government explain what plans there are for those improvements to corporate governance? I understand that the Bill must go through at speed, but it would have been better if it contained those measures.

Secondly, like the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, I wish to mention late payments to small businesses, and the important role of the Small Business Commissioner. If larger companies do not make good on their payments to small businesses, that could be the thing that pushes them over the edge. We believe that the Bill could be used to strengthen the powers of the Small Business Commissioner to help businesses that are struggling with cashflow and liquidity, and such a measure would have improved the Bill.

As I have said, we want to facilitate the passage of the Bill as it is important to protect businesses up and down the country, and we hope it can be improved in the ways I have set out. Having dealt with its specific provisions, however, let me deal with the wider context. The measures in the Bill can play a part in preventing insolvencies, but as the House knows, the number of businesses that go out of business depends on the external environment and on what the Government do in response to that. I welcome the action taken by the Government so far. There are lots of measures that we support, but we also believe there are gaps and other areas where the Government need to act.

I wish briefly to outline four sets of issues that go directly to the question of insolvency. First, I fear that the support system introduced by the Government is still not working sufficiently for our SMEs, and it risks worsening the insolvency problem. We called for the 100% underwriting of loans six weeks ago for smaller firms, and we welcomed the bounce back loan. Clearly, however—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made this point—those loans do not do enough for SMEs that need more than £50,000 of liquidity.

The bounce back loan was intended to improve the working of the CBIL scheme, but I am afraid that has not happened. I have the figures for what happened to the CBIL scheme in the past few weeks—I am sure the Secretary of State is as in touch with them as I am—and the number of facilities approved each week is going down, and the gap between the total numbers of applications and approvals is widening. Somebody contacted me the other day who will not be counted in those figures. He waited two months to be told by his high street bank that he was not eligible and that there was no point in him applying for a loan under the CBIL scheme. He will not be counted in those statistics, and hon. Members across the House will have heard of similar experiences.

I know that the Secretary of State is dealing with a range of issues to do with companies in distress. As I understand it, the idea was to get rid of the forward credit check for the CBIL scheme, but that does not seem to be doing the business and we need to understand why. I personally would be open to having 100% underwriting slightly higher up the scale, but we need a solution.

Secondly, beyond SMEs, I am deeply concerned about particular sectors, with manufacturing top of the list. We have seen thousands of redundancies at Rolls-Royce, real problems in the aerospace sector, issues in the car industry and massive issues facing steel. In France, steel received support within a fortnight of lockdown, whereas here our companies are still waiting. We read stories in the Financial Times about public equity stakes being considered—the so-called “Project Birch. It sounds like an interesting idea, but I say to the Secretary of State that this is taking too long, both for larger companies and for the SMEs in the supply chain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State. During this crisis, many of us have experienced groundhog day, and we have certainly just experienced it now; looking at the right hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box took me back to a period before 2015.

I warmly welcome the Bill. As the shadow Secretary of State said, the Secretary of State is right to set this legislation in the context of an extraordinarily impressive set of business measures—regardless of any tinkering around the edges that is needed—that the Government have put in place to tackle the covid crisis. We are right to recognise that in normal circumstances the Bill probably would have been split into two phases. Some of the changes that it contains are permanent, and have been debated and consulted on certainly since 2016, but maybe earlier. Other changes are rightly temporary, as they are urgent measures to address the challenges faced by many in the corporate sector who would not necessarily normally be experiencing such problems with insolvency. The flexibility is therefore clearly right.

As I have said, the Bill sets out a number of permanent and temporary concepts and provisions. I will spend a little bit of time reflecting on one or two of the permanent ones, before finishing with a particular temporary issue that affects my constituency. The Bill outlines the concept of moratorium, and it is quite clear what that is. It gives the challenged business a 20-day opportunity to consider a rescue plan. That can be extended for a further 20 days if the directors ask for it, and can, as I understand it, be extended for a whole year should the creditor or the court consent. The purpose of that is clearly obvious, and all that makes a huge amount of sense. During that period the directors retain control of the company and no legal action can be taken against it without a court decision.

However, the process is overseen by a monitor, a point on which I want to raise a few issues that I hope my Front-Bench colleagues will consider or at least address later. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has already raised with the Secretary of State the potential conflict of interest to do with whether the monitor is sanctioned by an independent regulatory body or is just a normal insolvency practitioner that could be taking work from one group of companies with one hand and, with the other, working against that in looking at insolvency. I hope my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will carefully consider the point about regulation and bring something back quickly.

The second point concerns the criteria that the monitor has to use for the moratorium, the time it could take to assess whether the definition is met, and whether the criteria are too tightly drawn or could be met more quickly if they were more easily drawn. I recognise the need for the monitor to make a suitable statement about the moratorium. The current threshold is whether

“in the…monitor’s view, it is likely that a moratorium…would result in the rescue of the company”.

However, the monitor has a relatively short period in which to make that assessment. In normal circumstances there would be a huge amount of due diligence done on trading, future trading, inspection of management accounts, general financial arrangements and debt arrangements. Not only does that normally take longer than 20 days; it is potentially a costly process to undertake. Particularly given the spirit of what we are trying to do in the Bill, will Ministers consider whether it might be more effective to look at the definition of the criteria and approve a slightly lower threshold for what constitutes a company that could be rescued? That might be as simple as saying that “it is likely” that the moratorium could result in the rescue of the company, as opposed to saying that “it must”. That would be of considerable help in rescuing companies.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with my hon. Friend and support his point. I think the provision to which he is referring is proposed new section A6(1)(e) in the Insolvency Act 1986, which contains the wording:

“in the…monitor’s view, it is likely that a moratorium for the company would result in the rescue of the company as a going concern.”

Simply changing “would” to “could” would resolve the issues.

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend drafts the amendment for me. I absolutely agree, and I hope those on the Front Bench will too. That would seriously help with what we are trying to do at this stage.

The permanent measures are designed to allow as many companies as possible to be rescued and to continue trading, but these companies will be creditors of others. In that regard, we must also look at the Bill’s potentially perverse impacts. I have a constituency case, Ms Ravindran, a constituent who runs a design business. It is a small company that is owed £36,000 by an individual, and at least 10 other creditors are owed up to £200,000 in total by that particular individual and company. She is rightly concerned that the Bill will give undue protection to one rather than the other. The issue is that it will be clear to those intending to use the provisions of the Bill to protect themselves, and to enable themselves to trade through and be rescued or restructured, that they should not be undertaking activities. I would like the Minister’s reassurance that the companies seeking to be rescued will not be able to take early advantage of things such as directors loans to take money out of a business that is then likely to apply for a moratorium and thereby impact others who are debtors of that company.

There is also a potential problem that I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me about later. Under the current drafting, ongoing trading costs and scheduled debt repayments that occur during the moratorium do get paid. Those that do not get paid become a super-priority, but nothing prior to that gets paid. The concern is that the potential suppliers to a company in the moratorium period may try to game that period. They may well see a company in difficulty and decide that it is easier to put the payments due to them in the moratorium period, so that they get super priority, not in the normal supply. I suggest to the Minister that the way around that is to have a look again at whether there could be some tweaking of the definition and to consider that the Bill be amended so that only the interest and charges incurred during the moratorium, rather than the scheduled debt repayment, becomes the super priority. That would take away the incentive to game the system.

There is clearly an understanding about why changes are proposed in the Bill to the termination of supply contracts. We all know that currently a supplier could use contractual terms to cease supply. Therefore, ensuring that a company that has entered into a moratorium or a restructuring procedure, as defined by the Bill, is not forced to rely on the usual contractual terms is clearly right, but there are some other circumstances. Again, have we thought clearly enough about the protection to the supplier? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly talked about some of the protections that are there, but it is clear that the non-payment of those debts to the supplier could put that supplier into insolvency as well, because it may not be able to get the protection from the court fast enough.

I think that the definition of what constitutes hardship to the small or medium-sized supplier or the company in the rescue package might clearly present some—I was going to use the phrase “wriggle room”—legal possibilities that should not be contemplated. Beyond the definition of hardship, should there not at least be a legal obligation in the restructuring plan that requires a supplier’s status to be given legal protection? I think that is quite important, and it inevitably means some reconsideration of the named cross-class clampdown proposals as well.

A lot has been said about the supplier and making sure that it continues to supply, and, hopefully, the company getting those supplies is then rescued. Again, however, in some circumstances not every company entering the restructuring procedures will actually be rescued. It simply will not happen. What happens then? As I understand it, the supplier is given the super priority status, but—and this leads into another point I want to make in a moment—will Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or indeed other financial providers, want to be given super super priority status over and above that of the supplier? The provisions to ensure the continuity of supply are welcome, but I ask my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to reflect on whether he can reassure us about the protections to the suppliers.

That leads directly to my next point, which is that the Bill reintroduces the concept of making HMRC a preferential creditor. I am very concerned that all the good work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing in this Bill could be unwound by doing that. It could have a really negative impact on business rescuing and lending across the UK.

Do not take my word for it: R3, the industry insolvency practitioner, directly makes that point. It goes against a policy, which has encouraged lending to small businesses, that has been in place for some 18 years.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a very important point. I think the legislation is covered under clause 95 of the Finance Bill, which makes HMRC a preferred creditor once again. The real concern is not just that lenders will be less willing to lend on that basis—that is a concern because you go above lenders with a floating charge—but that HMRC may be less willing to show forbearance to businesses that are seeking protection and time to get through these problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his customary and welcome thorough exposition of the Bill. I pass on my thanks, too, to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for his engagement. We have been working constructively to try to ensure that we are, as the Secretary of State said, supporting businesses with the measures we are taking. It is very important to remember that people and businesses should be the laser focus of the work we are doing throughout this crisis.

It is important to consider the Bill and support it through today in a constructive manner. That is what the SNP intends to do. The Bill, although in itself a welcome step in the current crisis, should not be seen in isolation. Some very good points were made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). Some interventions were also very telling.

        As I have said, this Bill should not be seen in isolation. I want to touch on the impact of the Finance Bill, current business conditions and, of course, business and public confidence in the steps that need to be taken. This Bill helps with some provisions and should allow firms to apply their best endeavours to continue to trade during this pandemic emergency. As I have said, we support the Bill and the amendments to make that as easy as possible for people. None the less, as I have alluded to, the problems for the Bill lie in three other areas. Another piece of legislation—the Finance Bill—actually undermines, not just risks, these provisions and sets the conditions that could push companies to the brink. Then there are the plans to grant HMRC preferential status in the insolvency procedures, and the measures to make directors personally liable for companies’ tax liabilities. Together, these represent a significant challenge to businesses across the nations of the UK in trying to access working capital finance. While noting that it is difficult to accurately model the policy’s impact on business lending, UK Finance estimates that the policy could hit lending by well over £1 billion per annum, and possibly—because the modelling is difficult—much more than that.

        As well as having a detrimental impact on business and economic growth, restricted lending will make it harder to rescue businesses, increasing the knock-on effect of insolvency on other businesses and people. Business investment returns to creditors and confidence in the UK corporate framework all stand to be damaged as a result. Although the tax abuse using the company insolvencies measure can be mitigated through accurate legislative drafting and detailed guidance from HMRC, the policy to grant HMRC preferential creditor status should be withdrawn entirely, as its introduction may prove a hammer blow to businesses at exactly the time that the Government profess to be seeking to level up and support them as they adapt to the impact of covid-19.

        The second area of difficulty involves the economic inequities left by the gaps for businesses and Government support schemes during the covid-19 crisis. If the changes for this Bill can be pushed through sensibly in record time, there is no reason why the same urgency cannot be applied to filling the gaps that people and businesses are experiencing. We have heard today that there are substantial problems that not only exist now, with people struggling and unable to access support, but that are looming larger because of the decisions that have been made— over quarantine, for example. As I said during the statement earlier, this is not about whether quarantine is a good or bad device; it is about the fact that it will impact disproportionately on businesses involved in tourism and hospitality. That has to be addressed as we go forward.

        The issues are very clear. Firms are already finding it difficult to access cash, not least because of the UK Government’s flawed coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. I say this with the understanding that the schemes had the best of intentions—to support businesses —but, as we have already heard, they are just not working for everyone. I will not repeat the details because we have heard about that in the Chamber today. There are also big holes in the job retention scheme and the support programme for the self-employed. All of those things are critical to supporting businesses, and all of those things undermine what we are trying to do with this Bill by working collectively to ensure that these measures are taken forward as effectively as possible.

        I agree entirely that the Treasury should extend its 100% bounce-back scheme. That guarantee should cover the entire CBIL scheme. The fact that only a tiny fraction of businesses have received support underlines the need for the UK Government to introduce grants, not just loans. The UK Government should review and relax the lending criteria and speed up the process so that businesses can get vital access to cash.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is a bit harsh to say that the schemes are not working at all. About £30 billion has been lent under both those schemes—about £9 billion under the CBILS and £21 billion under bounce-back loans. The CBILS issue seems to be that, although the forward-looking viability test has been removed, banks are still assessing whether businesses can afford to make the loan repayments over that period. If we remove the requirement for banks to do that, a lot more money would go out the door under the CBILS.

[Drew Hendry]

I agree and I am willing to concede that some people have indeed been helped. I said that the scheme was introduced with the best of intentions, but the fact is that there are far too many people running businesses who have tried to access this scheme but could not do so. We have heard examples, and I could give dozens more from people who have contacted me. I guarantee that just about everybody—if not everybody—in the Chamber has had similar contact from people who have been unable to access the scheme. The fact is that it is not working as it was intended to. It is not getting through to the people who really need it, notwithstanding those who have been able to access it.

My party, the Scottish National party, also backs calls by the Institute of Directors for the Government to use the scheme to provide firms with overdrafts during this crisis. For firms still unable to access finance, it is high time—indeed, it is overdue—for direct grants and/or equity investments to be offered instead.

The final problem is public and business confidence. We are at stage four in the covid crisis at the moment. There has been a relaxation of measures for people to get out and about and do things and for businesses to start up, but that confidence evaporates if we have to go back to the restrictions and businesses are not able to do that. That will pile on the pressure for the businesses that we are trying to assist today.

I was struck by what was said by the hon. Member for Wimbledon—I hope I get this right—about one of the problems being the protection of one thing at the expense of another. That is a really good comment, because overall confidence and compliance for people and businesses will face further threat. All measures that are introduced by a Government who are, unfortunately, defined by double standards are likely to run into difficulties. This UK Government, these measures and those on public health are all being undermined by the failure to deal with the Dominic Cummings saga. No matter how much the Prime Minister bloviates, this matter has not gone away. My inbox and, I am sure, those of many others, were still full this weekend of messages from people looking for that to be addressed. I know that it is not a party thing, because I have seen the tweets and messages from people representing constituencies and parties around the House—they have all had the same messages. This matter—the principle of different rules applying—has not gone away or failed to register. We might take the comment of the hon. Member for Wimbledon and say that the protection of one at the expense of all others applies here. Observance of the rules is critical to the success—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) on an excellent maiden speech. It made me feel slightly nostalgic, because I made my maiden speech—I was trying to work it out— 10 years and one week ago. In addition to that, I made my maiden speech immediately following the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who has just spoken. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) opened for the Opposition on that occasion as well, so there are a lot of similarities even though we are talking about a different topic today.

I rise to speak in support of the Bill. It has a lot of practical and important measures to support businesses, particularly in my coastal constituency which has many businesses in the hospitality sector. They are particularly badly affected because trade cannot resume as normal. As many Members will know, businesses in the hospitality sector do not necessarily make all their money at an even pace every month throughout the year. They are effectively losing much of the summer season when they would usually seek to raise the revenue that sees them through the rest of the year. Extra financial support at this time is therefore particularly important for businesses in that sector and I welcome it strongly for that reason.

I would like to speak about one sector that is not covered by the provisions in the Bill. I do not believe it is covered by any of the measures that have been put in place so far. It does have rather unique circumstances, but I believe it is a very important sector because of the unique role it plays in our national life—professional football. Professional football clubs are unusual businesses. They have very high turnovers but operate at very small margins. Many people would say that the big clubs in the premier league have a huge amount of money that they spend on players, but most of the income they receive is tied up in the contracts of the players who play for them. They do not necessarily have very much cash.

Clubs in league one and league two are particularly vulnerable because their revenues do not come from broadcasting. Most of the income for big clubs such as Manchester United, Manchester City or Liverpool comes from people around the world watching them play on television. For them to play behind closed doors and receive that broadcasting money gives them the money to succeed. However, for clubs that play in tier 3 and tier 4 in league one and league two, the vast majority of their income comes from playing live in front of spectators. Without that income, they have no revenue. What they have is a series of fixed costs.

The reason professional football clubs have fixed costs is that, unlike almost all other businesses in this country, they cannot restructure their debts and finances by going into administration. They are bound by the laws of their leagues to pay all their football debts in full, including player salaries and transfer fees. Unless they can meet all those costs, they will be expelled from the league. This is an application of a rule that has been the subject of court cases by HMRC and of much debate on matters to do with football club insolvency in this House in my 10 years here. That is a rule called the football creditors rule. It is a rule created by the football leagues for competition reasons to ensure that clubs cannot over-extend themselves, buy better players that they cannot really afford, go into administration to clear their debts and then resume. They have to be consistent in what they can afford through the season, but it does mean that they do not have the option of restructuring their debts. Their obligations and major outgoings are largely going to be the fixed costs of paying players.

There have already been a number of warnings that we will see this summer, because of the financial distress of lots of clubs, the mass release of a large number of players. It has been estimated that up to 1,400 players may be released without being re-signed. We had a small foretaste of that in Scotland last week when Dunfermline Athletic released 17 players.

More troubling over the next few weeks will be the fact that many smaller clubs supplement their income during the summer months when they are not playing through advance sales for the following season. Advance sales of season tickets normally come through in June, which is also when advertisers will make bookings, as will people taking out matchday hospitality packages. That money comes in in June and July and keeps the clubs going while they are not playing, but it is not going to come through now because these would be advance sales for a season that has no start date and no one knows how long it will be before things go back to anything like normal. That affects the whole hospitality sector. As I said, it is less of a problem for those in the premier league, because as long as they are playing on television, although there will be some loss of income because the package is not quite the same as it would normally be, they will still be getting their money in that way, whereas other clubs will not. There is a severe danger that some clubs will simply run out of cash in the next weeks.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Is he aware that some banks have a blanket restriction on lending money to football clubs and are applying that restriction to CBILS as well, so even though the Government support is not supposed to have a sector-based restriction, this is being applied to football clubs?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers the intervention, although he has not spoken for an inordinately long time—indeed, other Members have spoken for much longer—he has spoken for well over 10 minutes, and I have to ask him to conclude pretty quickly, because it is in the interests of everyone that the Minister is able to answer the debate. Members have asked questions, and we must have time for that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to move on quickly.

A lot of this information is supplied by the then business owners. Deloitte actually perjured itself in court on many of these issues. All this arises because of the conflict of interest. Deloitte should have sued the bank, but that simply does not happen. This stuff happens because of the unholy alliance of vested financial interest, which we must eliminate.

The moratorium will help tremendously, but we also need to do what the Department has said it is keen to do: move away from self-regulation, which is how the sector is currently regulated. We need to recognise professional bodies and move to a single regulator—an ombudsman. We must put a Chinese wall between the accountancy practices that do the consultancy work and the insolvency practitioner.

We must also give individuals more power. In my view, we should allow the business to challenge the appointment of an insolvency practitioner and the approach of an insolvency practitioner, to effectively recognise creditor misconduct within the insolvency process, and let them take their complaint to a tribunal there and then. In Comet’s case, it was eight years down the line before the situation was resolved. It must happen there and then. We must have an ombudsman supported by a tribunal that can support businesses who feel that the insolvency has been carried out incorrectly.

There is one final thing I would like to say. I completely support the removal of the right of forfeiture from landlords and the suspension of winding-up orders. Some businesses, particularly very big businesses, are abusing that privilege—I would name Boots and WHSmith —by effectively saying to landlords, “We’re not even talking to you.” That is completely inappropriate. Ideally, those measures should come with the condition that a company cannot take dividends if it is benefiting from those measures. With that, I will happily conclude.