Draft Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024 Draft Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. The draft order and the draft guidance issued under section 110(1) of the Deregulation Act 2015 were laid before the House on 6 March 2024.

I am pleased to initiate this debate, and I emphasise the Government’s commitment to upholding rigorous parliamentary scrutiny for statutory instruments that impact the UK’s independent regulators. The draft statutory instrument and guidance we are debating relate to the growth duty, a duty that requires specified regulators to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when exercising certain regulatory functions. Regulators within the scope of this duty need to consider the potential impact of their activities and their decisions on economic growth, and ensure that any regulatory action they take is necessary and proportionate.

The growth duty applies to more than 50 regulators and came into statutory effect on 29 March 2017 under the Deregulation Act 2015. The regulators already covered include the Environment Agency, the Care and Quality Commission and the Gambling Commission. At present, the growth duty does not apply to the utilities regulators, which are the Office of Communications, also known as Ofcom, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets or Ofgem, and the Water Services Regulation Authority or Ofwat. The draft instrument will extend the growth duty to those regulators, which oversee industry sectors accounting for 13% of annual private UK investment and about 4% of UK GDP. By extending the growth duty, we will ensure that those critical regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth.

The Department for Business and Trade has also prepared refreshed related statutory guidance to provide greater clarity to support regulators in their application of, and reporting against, the growth duty. The draft refreshed guidance identifies drivers of growth and behaviours of smarter regulation to assist regulators better to ensure proportional regulation and support sustainable economic growth.

Regulators play a vital role in shaping the UK economy through the way in which they regulate. It is therefore critical that regulation is cognisant of the requirements of growth. A good regulatory environment emerging from the attentive and responsive stewardship of an effective regulator can create the conditions for business confidence and investment, sensible risk taking, and innovation. Together, the extension of the growth duty and the revised guidance will support a positive shift in how regulation is delivered, driving growth and paving the way for businesses to start and grow.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We have discussed the actions of other regulators under the Minister’s remit on a number of occasion. Can he give us some examples of when actions of the water or energy regulators under the existing system have been detrimental to economic growth? The views I get from the public are that that is not where the biggest failing in the regulatory system is.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is about ensuring that regulators are proportionate in their decision making and take into account the needs for economic growth. For example, speed of decision making is pretty important to someone who is investing in our economy—they want to ensure that there is a consistent framework and that, where changes are made, they are done quickly and with the input of businesses. The feedback we are hearing is that that is not always the case. As I said, from 2017 this regime was implemented for 50 other regulators, and the sky has not fallen in yet on those sectors when any changes have been made to the system.

I understand there is a perception that the growth duty may conflict with environmental duties or enforcement of protections. That is absolutely not the case. The draft refreshed growth duty statutory guidance sets out in the opening paragraph the importance of ensuring

“adequate protections for consumers and the environment.”

The growth duty does not and will not legitimise non-compliance with other duties or objectives, and its purpose is not to achieve or pursue economic growth at the expense of necessary protections. The guidance also identifies environmental sustainability as one of the seven drivers of economic growth. We set out in the guidance that natural capital and the ecosystems in which we live are fundamental to economic growth and therefore need to be safeguarded for economic growth to be sustained.

The draft SI will ensure that economic growth can form part of regulators’ decision making and purpose, thus supporting the change in behaviour being sought. By requiring the regulators to consider the growth duty, they will be empowered to consider areas that may not be reflected or may be only partly reflected in their duties, such as promoting innovation or trade growth.

The growth duty is not prescriptive and does not mandate particular actions, nor does it create a hierarchy over existing regulatory duties. The draft refreshed guidance is clear that regulators, as independent and experienced bodies, are best placed to balance their own decision making in that regard. The Government have also committed to review the impact of the extension of the SI within the related impact assessment, and will consider the impact and effectiveness of the growth duty on investment, growth, the environment and other factors in detail at the committed review point.

The draft refreshed guidance outlines drivers of sustainable economic growth supported by case studies, examples to provide clarity to regulators within scope of the duty and to help them promote growth. The guidance also identifies behaviours that contribute to good regulatory decision making and smarter regulation. The purpose of the guidance is to assist regulators to give appropriate consideration to the potential impact of their decisions on economic growth. The revised guidance encourages transparency and accountability for growth across regulators, with the aim of attracting investment and creating jobs.

The proposals are necessary to ensure that the energy, water and communications sectors strive for maximum efficiency over a sustained period. The draft refreshed guidance makes it clear that regulators should work with businesses on, among other things, the environment, trade, investment and skills to ensure sustainable medium to long-term economic growth. That will ensure that current-day economic growth can be achieved without undermining the ability of future growth. The refreshed growth duty guidance will support regulators in their application of, and reporting against, the growth duty. The Secretary of State’s overarching priority is to support businesses and grow the economy, which is what this draft instrument and supporting guidance seek to achieve today. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The shadow Minister raised a number of important points about environmental protections. The new duty does not override the requirements of water companies or the regulator to ensure that environmental protections are put in place.

I would gently point out that there are two reasons why we are seeing such difficulties with our water suppliers now compared with the progressive change we have seen over recent years. First, we increased the monitoring of those dangerous parts of our system from 7% to 100% in 2010 so that we can see what is actually happening on the ground. We are also experiencing much higher rainfall, which is adding problems. To tackle this, the water companies have committed £96 billion for the period of 2025 to 2030. That is a 63% uplift on previous levels. Even before that, they were investing £6 billion annually, which is double the amount invested in capital infrastructure prior to privatisation. Work is being undertaken, but we accept that more needs to be done.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised concerns about takeovers. Clearly we have a number of different vehicles we can use to mitigate those concerns, whatever sector they may relate to. We have the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and, for issues on public interest grounds, the Enterprise Act 2002. She also spoke about sluggish growth. I suggest that she checks the figures on GDP growth since 2010 or 2016 or pre-pandemic levels. We are third in the G7 and are growing faster than anywhere else except—[Interruption.] Well these are the facts. The hon. Lady can choose her own opinion, but she cannot choose her own facts. The only countries that have grown faster than us since then are the US and Canada. That is an absolute fact, so she should check the figures before saying that there has been sluggish growth.

On the question of “Why now?”, when we included the 50 regulators in 2017, we thought that the growth duty to be applied to Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom required further consideration, because they are economic regulators responsible for markets where operators are deemed to have monopoly or near-monopoly market power. More recently, we decided to include them within the various requirements of the growth duty.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon asked about conflict. To reiterate, there is no hierarchy here. The requirements for the environment remain and are not replaced by this measure. In terms of prices, the regulator has an affordability duty as one of the requirements, so that should not override the price-setting role that is naturally played by a regulator in what is pretty much a monopoly sector.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes talked about the requirements and why we are introducing this measure. I point him to some very important stakeholders, including the Federation of Small Businesses, that have welcomed this new duty. He asks about a sovereign wealth fund, which is one of the Government’s plans—we have already announced a plan to introduce one. I would say to him that this is about growth, and point to the facts about growth in the UK, particularly in Scotland. Over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021, England’s GDP growth was 14.9%. The UK’s as a whole was 12.9% and Scotland’s was 7.2%. Growth is important. We cannot deliver the revenue that allows us to set up something like a sovereign wealth fund without economic growth. That is what this is about, so he should welcome it.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister’s statistics are very interesting. Can he give us the equivalent figure for England without the City of London?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman can easily find the figures through the House of Commons Library, as I did. Is he envious of the City of London? We should be proud of this great city. Scotland has great cities too. I am a big fan of Edinburgh, Glasgow and other cities. What I am saying is that growth is important. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is not. I would ask him to think again about that perspective.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. To conclude, by extending the growth duty to Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat, we will ensure that the regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth. An economy that promotes growth is an economy that is better able to attract businesses to our shores, innovate, serve households and deliver prosperity across our nations.

Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Thursday 14th March 2024 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The shadow Minister asked about resources; the Government provided £63 million to start the work at Companies House on the change from having a dumb register to having a proactive registrar who maintains the integrity of the register. Also, £20 million was provided last year through the economic crime levy, which will be one of the future sources of funding. The key area for funding is the uplift in the registration fees and annual filing fees at Companies House. It used to be £12 to register a company; it is now £50. It used to be £13 to lodge an annual return; it is now £34. We think that provides Companies House and the Insolvency Service, which is the enforcement body for such matters, with the extra resources needed, and hundreds more people will come as a result. It will also fund things such as the intelligence hub, which is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes might want to alert Companies House about the address that has been used improperly. Companies House should then deal with that, and can do so much more quickly as a result of the new powers.

[Peter Grant]

I am sure it will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that Mr Barrow has already done that. We look forward to that company being removed from the register quite soon. One of the things that I found interesting is that the address used is not the company’s registered address.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman offline about that particular case, but any Member of this House or member of the public can alert Companies House about incorrect filings. As I say, as a result of what we have already done, that can be acted on much more quickly.

The hon. Gentleman talked about disqualification, and yes, absolutely, penalties can, as I said in my opening speech, contribute to a decision on disqualification. The penalties are civil penalties, but where the registrar feels that the conduct or offences are sufficiently serious, they can pass that on to the relevant prosecution body —the Insolvency Service, the police, the National Crime Agency or others. That is the kind of approach that Companies House typically takes.

The hon. Gentleman raised Blackmore Bond again, and has done a fantastic job of raising that on so many occasions. We have finally seen the FCA actually do something about it, as a result of much work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what underpins the whole regime is the recognition that it is impossible, given the number of records, for Companies House to be a policeman of every single record and everything that happens. Five million companies are on the register, and 800,000 were registered last year alone, so it is not practical to look at every single one, but there are serious consequences if people improperly or falsely file information, particularly if they do so maliciously. They can be sentenced to up to two years in prison. That underpins the regime as well.

I thank you, Ms Vaz. The debate has highlighted the need for a robust financial penalty regime at Companies House, as well as consistency in the law that governs business entities. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I chair the Hospitality Sector Council and meet large and small hospitality businesses regularly, so I understand the pressure they are under. The hon. Gentleman has some such businesses in his constituency and I do too, so we know that is a problem. We have put a huge amount into supporting businesses with their energy costs, halving the cost of energy for most businesses. Energy is much more affordable than it was this time last year, which was an incredibly difficult time, but some businesses are locked into expensive energy contracts from the backend of last year, when prices were very high. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of such businesses, he should bring them to me, as we have commitments from the energy suppliers, so we can challenge them and try to smooth the contracts over a longer period to ease the pain. I am happy to help him with any individual cases in his constituency.

On capital investment, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will host 200 of the world’s leading investors at the Global Investment Summit this weekend and on Monday, which I hope to attend. It will showcase the UK as one of the world’s best places to do business, and drive billions of pounds of new and strategic investment into every corner of the economy.

The autumn statement has a host of innovative measures that will unlock investment and fuel growth. For example, our pension reforms will help unlock an extra £75 billion of financing for high-growth companies, while providing an even better deal for savers. Plans include a new growth fund within the British Business Bank to crowd in pension fund capital to the UK’s most promising businesses.

Another example is our plan for further funding for two British Business Bank programmes, including the long-term investment for technology and science competition. That will make £250 million available to successful bidders to increase investment in key science and technology sectors, with the private sector contributing at least as much again. Not only that—we have made £50 million available to extend the future fund breakthrough scheme, which backs businesses focusing heavily on research and development.

Although the Chancellor did not mention it yesterday, we have also introduced important measures for equity investments, including a 10-year extension to the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme, giving investors and businesses the confidence, certainty and stability to invest, which underpins the system.

Secondly, this autumn statement contains a series of measures that will provide smaller businesses with practical help. As we prepare to mark Small Business Saturday next weekend—I am sure that Members across the House will visit their small businesses on 2 December—it could not be a more timely moment to announce our business rates support package. It will help high streets and protect smaller firms, which are the life blood of our local communities, saving the average independent pub more than £12,000 a year, and the average independent shop over £20,000.

In addition, the autumn statement will include measures to toughen our regulations to tackle late payments. I have seen at first hand how this scourge can crush even the most determined of business owners’ dreams, so it is right that we act.

The Procurement Act 2023 means that the 30-day payment terms, which are already set for public sector contracts, will automatically apply through the subcontract supply chain. From April next year, any company bidding for large Government contracts will have to be able to demonstrate that they pay their own invoices within an average of 55 days and that will reduce progressively to 30 days.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the steps that he has announced today, but of course the proof of the pudding lies in the enforcement. Sex discrimination at work has been illegal for almost 50 years, but it still happens. The Minister will be aware that, as well as calling for action on late payment generally, I have often raised an issue that we get in the construction and civil engineering sectors, where the main contractor is paid on time but keeps the money for an inordinate length of time. If the main contractor then does a Carillion and goes down, all the money becomes part of its administration and very often the subcontractors get nothing. Can we have legislation, a code of practice or something to protect small business subcontractors from being dragged down when the main contractor goes under?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this for some time and I have great regard for the work he does. It is worth him reading the “Payment and Cash Flow Review”, which was published yesterday alongside the autumn statement. It includes some references to retentions, to which he refers. There are other measures from the small business commissioner as well as more transparency on late payments. I am happy to engage with him further on this issue.

Although taxes pay for vital public services, this Government are clear that they must not stifle business owners’ ambitions. Quite simply, our economy relies on those ready to take risks and to innovate. Time and again, these entrepreneurs tell me that a simpler tax system would make life easier for them. This autumn statement will not just reduce tax but reform it, while putting more money into employees’ pockets.

The abolition of class 2 national insurance will save the average self-employed person £192 a year. Alongside the 1% reduction in the rate of class 4 national insurance, some 2 million self-employed people will be saving an average of £350 a year from next April.

In addition, from next year we will merge the existing research and development expenditure credit and the small and medium-sized enterprise R&D scheme. This will allow companies to claim back a proportion of their spending in this area through their tax bill, further simplifying the system and boosting innovation.

Finally, and very significantly, we have unveiled game-changing plans to make full expensing permanent. As the Chancellor set out yesterday, expensing aims to stimulate investment by giving larger companies £250,000 off their tax bill for every £1 million they invest. It was introduced, as hon. Members know, by the Chancellor in the spring and was set to last for three years, but it has been such a success, and the calls for it to continue have been so loud and clear that yesterday the Chancellor made it a permanent policy. This is the largest single tax cut in modern British history. It means that we now have not just the lowest headline corporation tax rate in the G7, but the most generous capital allowances too. That is hugely appealing to any business looking for a home in a global market.

The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that this move alone will increase annual investment by around £3 billion a year, and by £14 billion over the forecast period. We are able to do this only because we have met our borrowing rules early, have more than halved inflation, and are seeing our debt go down every year.

Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate and for her long-standing and effective campaigning in the area of non-disclosure agreements—she will remember that I engaged with that as a Back Bencher—and the negative effect they can have when used inappropriately. I thank hon. Members across the House for their very valuable and passionate contributions.

These agreements, which are also known as confidentiality clauses, can be used in a variety of contexts and contracts—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information. However, I will restrict my comments to the area of concern, which, as Members have discussed, is NDAs used in settlement agreements in cases of discrimination or harassment.

The Government have already taken significant steps to prevent the use of NDAs in the higher education sector to protect students, who are in a particularly vulnerable position as they have moved away from family and support networks for the first time. In January 2022, we introduced a world-leading pledge, with the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence, that commits higher education providers to voluntarily ending the use of NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct. As of 1 September, 84 providers, covering almost two thirds of students, have signed the pledge.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 goes further and bans the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and other forms of bullying and harassment in higher education. It is expected to take effect in 2024, and I recognise the important contributions made by Members here today—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—throughout the passage of that Bill.

As a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, I know that good employers will look to tackle bad behaviour head-on and improve their organisational culture and practice, rather than attempting to cover it up, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) clearly outlined. Organisations that do not treat such complaints in the way that he described are, in my experience, missing an opportunity.

Members of this House and organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence have brought to light examples of where NDAs have been drafted to intimidate employees from making disclosures to anyone, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon).

It is important to note that there are existing legal limits on the use of NDAs in the employment context. Some key ones were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson)—I thank her again for all the work she does on the all-party group on whistleblowing—and by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who talked about the seven NHS staff. An NDA cannot prevent a worker from blowing the whistle. That means that an NDA would be unenforceable if it stopped a worker from making a protected disclosure about wrongdoing, for example, to a lawyer or certain regulatory bodies or other prescribed persons for whistleblowing purposes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle pointed out that the current whistleblowing regime has limited scope—I think those were her words—and, as she knows, we are now undertaking a review, which will conclude by the end of this year. Indeed, officials involved in that review are in the Chamber today, so they will have heard her points clearly.

[Peter Grant]

We all understand that an NDA cannot prevent an employee or an ex-employee from making certain kinds of disclosures, but that is no good if the former employee does not know that. Does the Minister agree that we should change the law to require every NDA to say explicitly, on the face of the document, that it does not apply to particular kinds of disclosures, so that the former employee who has a copy of the agreement knows exactly what rights they still have?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to some other points on that issue, including on the guidance that we have given to ACAS in that area.

NDAs cannot prevent workers from reporting a crime to the police or from co-operating in a criminal investigation, because such a clause would be unenforceable—[Interruption.] I may have misheard what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, but it is very important that anybody listening to this debate, who is considering what their rights are, knows very clearly that such an agreement cannot prevent them from reporting a crime in this area.

Furthermore, the use of an NDA by an employer could amount to a criminal offence—for example, if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. Independent legal advice is a requirement for settlement agreements to be valid.

In 2019, the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consulted on the misuse of NDAs in an employment context. The consultation followed evidence found by the Women and Equalities Committee that individual workers may not be aware of their existing statutory rights and may be intimidated into pursuing claims even where the NDA is unenforceable—a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke does very important work in that area.

The consultation also heard evidence that individuals are pressured into signing NDAs without the appropriate legal advice, and therefore do not understand that their NDA is unenforceable. That is why the Government took action in developing extensive guidance, which was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS. It is clear that NDAs should not prevent individuals from making disclosures to the police and medical or legal professionals.

We have already legislated to prevent higher education providers using NDAs, as I said. We are keen to see how that works in practice, and it will come into force in 2024. The Government held a consultation on the matter in a wider context in 2019. We all agree that these agreements should not be used to intimidate individuals or conceal criminal conduct or illegal wrongdoing, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I point out to him that it is in the capability of the Northern Ireland Administration to implement that in Northern Ireland if they choose, with the matter being devolved to Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish Ramadan Mubarak to all those who today mark the beginning of the holiest period in the Islamic year?

The Minister will be aware that the model of sub-post offices is based on the expectation that most of them will be run by small, semi-independent or independent retail businesses. Those businesses are under desperate strain for a number of reasons, some of them within the Government’s control and some not. The people who run these businesses tell me that they are put off the possibility of taking on the responsibility for a sub-post office because it is now more a drag on the business than a benefit. What steps is he taking to review the business model on which sub-post offices operate? It is quite clearly not fit for purpose, and we are getting to crisis point. If it is not changed soon, we will lose even more post offices.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The model of a post office is evolving to a more diversified approach, but it is important that remuneration is fair and makes post offices sustainable. I was pleased to see that in August 2022 some improvements were made to remuneration. I appreciate that they may not have gone as far as some might wish, but nevertheless we want to see a sustainable network and make sure that our sub-postmasters are fairly remunerated.

[Peter Grant]

In an hour or two we will hear the latest update on the Horizon compensation scheme. Has the Minister made an assessment of how much damage that scandal has done and is continuing to do to the willingness of businesspeople to take on responsibility for running a sub-post office, given how severely badly treated, and indeed betrayed, so many of their potential colleagues have been in the past?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, that is a very fair point. It was a horrendous scandal, and the first thing we need to do is properly compensate the victims. Alongside that there is an inquiry going on, headed by Sir Wyn Williams. It is important that we find out exactly what went wrong and who was responsible, and where possible hold those people to account. I think that will restore some measure of confidence to those who have been subject to such disgraceful mistreatment.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

2nd reading
Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and a particular pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). She has done incredible work in this area for many years, for which we should pay tribute to her, and I hope she will continue for many years to do the same. I know that she has talked once or twice about hanging up her political boots—if the accommodation Whip is listening, I would very much like to inherit her office if she ever does—but nevertheless I hope she continues in Parliament for many years to come.

On a more serious note, all hon. Members deal with tragic cases and I want to refer to a couple of mine. Leah Heyes was a 15-year-old girl whose life ended in a carpark in Northallerton in 2019. Andrew Bellerby took his own life aged 35 in 2015. The connection between those two tragic cases is, of course, drugs. Lia suffered an adverse reaction to her first experiment with ecstasy, and Andrew’s life had been devastated by drug dependency. We also try to help families in those tragic cases, who are trying to pick up the pieces and make the best of what has happened to them, by putting in place measures to stop such things happening again. Too often we look at ways to try to deal with suicide cases more effectively or clamping down on people who deal drugs, but that is treating the symptoms, not the causes.

The causes are linked to economic crime. Many people will have watched the television series “Narcos”. The big cartels make a huge amount of money distributing the drugs that result in those tragic cases. They make so much that they bury hundreds of millions of pounds, because it is difficult to legitimise the money. They are not supposed to be able to pay that dodgy money into a bank or buy a yacht or a house with it, because questions should be asked about where the money has come from. Without the ability to launder the money, it is pointless perpetrating those horrendous crimes and being the linchpins behind those tragic cases.

The reality, however, is that many of our large financial institutions facilitate the laundering of that money. In 2012, HSBC, which we regard as a trusted organisation, was fined £1.9 billion for laundering money for the Sinaloa cartel, which was run by El Chapo. It is incredible that that would happen, but the obvious reason it does is money. The banks can make huge amounts of money themselves. My friend the right hon. Member for Barking mentioned the Danske Bank case. Normally a regional branch of a bank would have a profit margin of about 20% on turnover. The Estonian branch of Danske Bank that dealt with the £200 billion of Russian kleptocrat money had a profit margin of 460%, and that huge amount of money was the incentive. It is inconceivable that the people at the top of HSBC and Danske Bank did not know what was going on. It is impossible to make such extraordinary profits without those at senior levels knowing what is going on. But time and again we simply fine the bank and do not hold the individuals to account.

Drugs are not the only issue. Some of them are problems that we are trying to solve, such as the small boats crisis. Traffickers are making huge amounts of money and they need to be able to move that money around. Paul Stanfield, the head of economic crime at Interpol, says that it is all about the money and

“If you want to tackle organised crime, you have to go after the money”.

But the reality is that the UK makes all this easier. Because of some of our lax regulations on shell companies, which allow money to be hidden behind the veils of different companies in different jurisdictions, and because of the expertise in London and our overseas territories, the UK is the destination of choice for money laundering. The money may go to different places but it is laundered through London.

That is why many of the measures in the Bill are welcome, including those on transparency and Companies House. This is a big job. It is not only new companies whose directors must be verified, but existing ones. That is millions of companies. The Minister has been excellent in engaging on these issues, as was the previous Security Minister, but I would like to understand how that will be achieved. We may be putting £63 million into Companies House, but verifying the identities of people who have significant control over organisations will be a big job.

The resources going to Companies House need to be beefed up, and it makes sense to increase the very low fee of £12 for setting up a company in the UK to £50 or £100. I have set up quite a lot of companies in my time, and a fee of £50 or £100 would not have deterred me. That could increase resources to make sure that the enforcement happens. Too often, we look at innovation and legislation but we do not look closely enough at implementation. Without that, it is pointless having this debate. Implementation is key, and resources are key to that.

We are bound to focus on measures that are not in the Bill—that is what Back Benchers do. I have said many times that the No. 1 measure we need is an extension of the failure to prevent provisions on bribery and tax evasion, which have been so effective. People say that we talk a lot and never get anything done, but the bribery provisions have been massive in holding corrupt companies to account. The Serious Fraud Office has deferred prosecution agreements for Rolls-Royce for Airbus, with almost £1 billion in fines going to the Treasury. The SFO also prosecuted the GPT Special Project Management Ltd case. The SFO does not get many successful convictions but GPT Special Project Management Ltd pleaded guilty in Southwark Crown court in 2020, and paid £28 million in financial forfeitures as a result, on the back of the Bribery Act 2010.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for her work on whistleblowers. It is an area that the Bill does not cover at the moment, but I hope that the Minister will introduce more provisions. My constituent Ian Foxley blew the whistle in 2011, resulting in a conviction 10 years later. He was well paid, operating in the middle east for GPT, but he has had 11 years without any remuneration. He was earning probably £200,000 a year, so he is millions of pounds down. We do not protect or compensate whistleblowers, and that is wrong. Those people do the right thing and come forward but—not to put too fine a point on it —we hang them out to dry.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a grave injustice when those who have done the right thing have a lifetime loss of earnings of millions of pounds, but when crooked accountants are called up before and disciplined by the Financial Reporting Council, their loss of earnings from being suspended for a short time, which could run into millions of pounds, is taken into account? The sentence is often more lenient if it will have a significant financial impact on an accountant who has given false information to the FRC. It appears that the crooks are better treated than the people who try to bring them to justice.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. We need to clamp down on enablers of all kinds, and we need to get tougher in lots of ways to crack down on this in the way that we would all like to see. I know that provisions on whistleblowers will not be part of this Bill—although there may be amendments in Committee to that effect—but we want those brought forward as quickly as possible.

The failure to prevent is so important. It has to include the ability to hold an individual director to account, which would start to reduce the incidence of money laundering and the facilitation of all kinds of offences, including the huge profits made from drug dealing. An illustration of this is what happened with health and safety legislation back in 1974, when directors were made individually responsible and could go to jail if they did not prevent or seek to prevent serious injuries on their building sites. It became a health and safety offence that could be pinned on the individual. After that happened, deaths and serious injuries dropped by 90%. Of all the measures we have talked about today, this would have the biggest effect in terms of cutting down on economic crime, because lots of our financial organisations are complicit when it suits their interests to be so.

There are many other things we should do. We should extend what we did with unexplained wealth orders in terms of cost protection to other elements of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 such as property freezing orders and recovery orders. Bill Browder, who is very outspoken in these cases, has come up with an interesting idea. If an individual is sanctioned, anyone who has dealt with that individual—whether it be an accountant, a solicitor or anyone else—should have to hand over their records in connection with that individual to the authorities, so that we can track down the money more effectively. I cannot see a good argument against that.

We have talked about freezing and seizing assets. That is difficult to do, because we have to prove that there was a crime, and we believe in property rights and the rule of law in the UK, so taking these assets off individual oligarchs is tough. One thing that seems like an open goal is the fact that we hold about £30 billion in Russian foreign currency reserves. It is clear that Russia is guilty of international crimes in its invasion of Ukraine. We could legislate to ensure that that money is not just frozen, as it is currently, but confiscated, seized and used to pay reparations to Ukraine.

There are many other things we could do, which I will talk about further during the later stages of the Bill. I may well table one or two amendments, which I know Ministers will continue to engage with and, I hope, will look kindly on, because all these measures will clamp down on economic crime, which is good for the UK and good for business. It is not bad for the economy—it is good for the economy—and it will drive out these heinous crimes all around the world, not just in the UK. We will then be able to point proudly at our record on tackling economic crime, and I hope the Minister will take credit for that as this legislation passes through the House.

Tackling Fraud and Preventing Government Waste

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I welcome the Opposition motion on fraud. I am one of several people on the Government Benches who often speak out about tackling fraud, so I object a little to one or two of the comments from the Opposition that Conservative Members are not bothered about fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth, for a number of reasons, including the cost to our taxpayers. It undermines the very system that underpins our economy if people do not feel that the game is fair for all players, and fraud undermines the principle of everything I have stood for over my whole life in business—the fundamentals of a free-market economy are that it is a fair and level playing field.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), my company took a coronavirus business interruption loan—quite a sizeable one—which was paid back in full without touching it, which I am sure the Economic Secretary will be pleased to hear: we discussed it at length at the time.

It is important to put the issue in context. I had an Urgent Question on the issue last week, following Lord Agnew’s statement, because I was very concerned by many of the things he said in it and in his subsequent press articles. He said that the bounce back loan scheme, which has been the subject of many comments in the debate today, was

“an important and successful intervention”.

It was critical at the time. It is easy with hindsight to say that mistakes were made—of course they were, given the speed with which the scheme was rolled out. The initial iterations of the loan schemes did not include a bounce back loan scheme, which was introduced at a later stage, vitally.

[Peter Grant]

I certainly would not disagree with the hon. Member about the remarkable speed from when the Treasury sat down to devise the scheme to when the first loans were delivered. Does he share my disappointment that in the 10 years from 2010, when we knew a pandemic was coming, no planning whatever was done for the economic impacts and the impact on businesses of the protective measures that the Government might be forced to implement when the pandemic finally got here?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. The whole country would acknowledge that we need to be better prepared for a future pandemic. One of the lessons that we need to learn is to have a template ready for bounce back loans and other measures that we can roll out at pace, but we should not undermine the ability of that scheme to get money out to businesses in need.

The British Business Bank said that it had

“ensured that key counter-fraud measures consistent with the…design of the scheme were in place from the outset.”

It is not the case that the schemes were rolled out without any consideration for the potential for fraud. That highlights the issue of what checks and balances were in place—the Paymaster General set out some of them in his speech, which was useful—and which banks performed better in taking into account those measures. As Lord Agnew said, 81% of the amount that has not been repaid so far—as far as we understand from the Treasury—relates to two of the seven biggest banks. Clearly some banks did better than others with know your client checks and fraud checks.

We need to understand exactly what happened. We cannot just roll out a scheme, let it run and that is it. The implications for recovering loans are hugely important. We need the dashboard of information that Lord Agnew called for so that we can clearly understand the performance of the banks. One criticism that I would level at the Treasury is that far more transparency is needed about which banks are issuing loans, what percentage of applications are successful and the success in recovering loans. As somebody who took a loan for my business, I would advocate complete transparency about which businesses take loans. If all that were open—access to Government loan schemes or furlough, and so on—it would be far easier for the public, the media and parliamentarians to hold individual businesses to account. Businesses motivated by wrong and perhaps nefarious purposes would be far less likely to try to access the loans in the first place. Far greater transparency is needed, and to get that taxpayers’ money back there certainly needs to be transparency around the bank’s performance now.

Many people have called for an economic crime Bill, and some of us have been banging on about that for some time. It could really help. One of the elements is the failure to prevent economic crime. I think that corporate liability should extend to individuals, rather than at corporate level. The No. 1 thing we could do to deter financial organisations and corporations, even smaller corporations, from defrauding people or enabling fraud and money laundering is to say to the individuals behind those companies that they will be held personally responsible. It could have had an effect on the bounce back loan scheme if the banks that cared a little bit less about where the money went were held to account through the senior managers regime and the Financial Conduct Authority, and potentially by other charges too. Failure to prevent is absolutely fundamental to the economic crime Bill.

Companies House reform is also absolutely fundamental. It is clear that that should be the case and I know the Government are doing something on that already. One perverse situation at the moment is that if someone sets up a business through a company formation agent, they should be subject to money laundering checks by HMRC. If they set up a company directly with Companies House, however, there are no money laundering checks. It simply cannot be right that if someone goes to one and cannot get set up, they can go to Companies House. Companies House, therefore, needs to be a regulator, rather than just a register.

The register of overseas entities does not come under the taxpayer, of course, but through a simple levy attached to the cost of creating a company, currently £12. That could raise enough money for Companies House to be that regulator, so we could see who was trying to launder money through UK properties. That is absolutely critical. The Government are committed to all this stuff, but we just need them to commit to bringing it forward in the next parliamentary Session. It was great to hear what the Chancellor said on that today. He seemed to be really keen on that being in the next parliamentary Session. I hope recent events will push it up the political agenda.

One issue we neglect in the conversation about cutting economic crime is the role of whistleblowers. Most economic crime is not highlighted by our very good agencies. They are good sometimes and the legislation we are bringing forward will help them to take forward successful prosecutions, but they need the evidence in the first place. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who made a fantastic speech and who has huge experience in this area, agrees that we need people to come forward with the evidence. Our regulators and fraud agencies can only really be watchdogs rather than bloodhounds and they need to be given access to the information in the first place.

Whistleblower protections in the UK are pretty woeful now compared with how they used to be. We used to be world leaders in this area. If we want to uncover economic crime, we have to make sure that the people who identify and highlight it, and help the Serious Fraud Office to make prosecutions stick, are protected. That is not the case at the moment. My constituent Ian Foxley highlighted the case of GPT special projects. Some £28 million-worth of economic sanctions against that company were handed down in Southwark court, but for 10 years my constituent has gone without a penny, having had a six-figure salary in his previous role. He blew the whistle. One could say that his whistleblowing led to the Airbus fine of £3 billion, of which £860 million came to the Treasury, but he has gone without a single penny and that cannot be right. We have to make sure people are protected when they come forward, and are properly compensated for the distress and financial impact it has on their lives.

Supporting Small Business

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I commend the Labour Front-Bench team for bringing it to the House and the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), for her well-informed and often thought-provoking speech. As a lot of Back Benchers wish to contribute to the debate and much of the substance of the motion concerns devolved matters, I shall not detain the House for too long.

It is important that we recognise the fundamental part played by small businesses in our economy—the economy of the United Kingdom and all its constituent nations. I am reminded that many years ago my good friend Alasdair Morgan, who served with distinction in this place and in the national Parliament of Scotland, addressed a meeting about economic regeneration and pointed out that there were twice as many small businesses in his constituency as there were unemployed people. This was in the days when the unemployment figures were not fiddled, so the numbers were a lot higher than they are just now. Alasdair pointed out that if every small business could be helped to take on less than half a full-time employee, we could abolish unemployment. Instead of helping small businesses to increase their workforce, though, we are far too often faced with a Government who take steps that seem deliberately designed to make it harder for small businesses to take on additional employees.

Small businesses face structural problems that bigger businesses do not. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric from the Government about supporting small businesses, a lot of the specific difficulties that they face seem to get ignored. I confess that I never appreciated one such difficulty until several businesses in my constituency contacted me independently of each other. What they all had in common was that they had been taken to the cleaners by dodgy suppliers, because the suppliers knew that even a small business that is not much bigger than a single-person operation is regarded as a business and so has no consumer protection. Tech companies and telephone supplies companies—which tended to be the worst, by the way—understood that they could fleece small businesses and get away with it, whereas if they tried the same tactics with individuals, the consumer protection laws, although not ideal, would protect those individuals from being too badly damaged. A couple of long-established small businesses in my constituency were brought very close to closure purely for that reason. The Government might want to look into that.

Business-to-business enterprise and business-to-business commerce tends to operate on the basis that it is between two equal partners, but when a two-person or three-person operation deals with a multinational corporation with a turnover of billions, that is not an equal contest or an equal deal. Perhaps, in the same way as we need to protect individual citizens from being taken advantage of by bigger suppliers or businesses, we need to do more to give smaller businesses some kind of consumer protection.

Smaller businesses are much worse affected when there is a recruitment crisis, as there is just now. The Government blame covid, but everybody knows that Brexit is as much to blame as covid. If a company has a workforce of 100 and loses two or three people, it still has 97% of its operation; if a company has a workforce of three and loses a person, that can make the entire business unsustainable and unviable. The clear message that we get from small businesses and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses is that the labour shortages we see in key sectors of the economy just now have not yet been adequately addressed. I am not convinced that the Government have even adequately recognised them.

It is all very well to say, “Isn’t it great to have all these vacancies?” but if the people who are looking for work do not have the skills that are needed for those vacancies, or if there are reasons why they cannot take on the work in those jobs, it is quite possible to have very high vacancy levels. Businesses are struggling because they cannot fill those vacancies, and, at the same time, a lot of people are struggling because they cannot get a job that fits with their commitments or responsibilities outside the workplace.

Much of the debate so far has focused on the retail sector, partly because the traditional picture of the high street is one where there is a lot of retail activity, most of it generated by small independent retailers. That is a great thing to have in a town, but how many of us could walk down any high street in our constituency today and see more than half of the existing businesses independently owned and run, never mind locally owned and run?

There has been a huge shift in ownership in the retail sector, as there has been elsewhere. The sad thing is that, when times get tough, a big business, which has no soul in the community, is likely to clear out, whereas the smaller business, locally grown and locally based, is much more likely to dig in and to hang on in there for as long as it possibly can. That is why we will often find that, when things get difficult in the retail sector, the small locally owned shops will try to stay open for as long as they can, whereas the big chains will sacrifice 100, 200 or even 300 properties and the jobs that go with them at the stroke of a pen without a thought to the devastation that they are leaving behind.

I have a particular situation in Glenrothes. To the best of my knowledge, it is the only town in the United Kingdom where the high street is shut at night. A stroke of genius by the then Conservative Government in the 1990s when the development corporation was being wound up was that they sold what the Americans would call a shopping mall to private owners, and it has been struggling ever since. We do not have a night-time economy because the high street is shut. People cannot get in. If they are in and the doors are locked, they cannot get back out.

In spite of that, there are still some remarkable success stories in the Kingdom shopping centre in Glenrothes. I was delighted to pay a visit to Jessop Jewellers to congratulate the owner on their 50th anniversary in the one premises in the town. I can highly recommend their products as well by the way, although I may have made a mistake by telling the owner that I am now only a few years away from my ruby wedding, so I think she may be going to contact Mrs Grant about that in the not too distant future.

A lot of the focus today has been on non-domestic rates. Clearly, because that is devolved, the specific way in which the rates system operates in England does not apply in Scotland. For a number of years, the Scottish Government have had the most generous and most supportive non-domestic rates scheme anywhere in the United Kingdom. We had small business support, whereby small businesses did not pay any rates at all for years, before it was introduced in other parts of the United Kingdom. We still have greater support for our small businesses than any other part of the United Kingdom.

My message to the Government, and indeed to the Opposition should they be in a position to move into government in the near future, is to continue to support small businesses in England, whether through supporting the domestic rates scheme or something else. That then generates additional funding through Barnett consequentials for the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and allows those Parliaments to support our small businesses at the same time.

We could quite easily have filled this Chamber with a debate that would have run for four or five days if we had invited every Member of Parliament to come in and describe the exact situation for businesses in their constituency. I know that there have been a number of contributions along those lines from Labour Back Benchers already today, but the simple fact is that the party that used to be the party of small business is not recognised as that any more, certainly not by small businesses themselves. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, it is not recognised as a party of small business by its own members and its own voters. It has lost sight of the part that small businesses have played in creating the economy that we have just now. It has lost sight of the fact that, without small businesses, we cannot have a successful and sustainable economy. [Laughter.] I can hear the laughter from the Conservative Back Benchers—that sums up their attitude. It is the attitude that a lot of small businesses feel they have received from this Government over the past two or three years—[Interruption.]

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) has just said, it was not laughter; it was astonishment. I have been in business for 30 years. Not every businessperson I meet votes Conservative, but the vast majority do, and I have not heard anybody say what the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has just said—that the Conservative party is no longer the party of small business. Not only that, but there is huge support for what this Government have done over the last 18 months in supporting those businesses through the worst crisis to hit business in the last 100 years.

[Peter Grant]

If the hon. Member does not understand what the Federation of Small Businesses thinks about his Government tearing up their manifesto promise and increasing the burden of national insurance, if he does not understand what small businesses are saying about the impact that Brexit has had on them, if he does not understand that the energy crisis that the United Kingdom still faces, with massively increasing energy costs that then increase costs for every single business on these islands, and if Conservative Members do not understand that all those things are purely the result of their party’s policies, each and every one of which is devastating for the wellbeing of small business, then we have to wonder why on earth they are still in Government.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

We have to remember that we are dealing with a large number of people. It is not just one company with 50 or 60 people who are victims; there are thousands of victims that we know of and probably many more than we do not know of, and the amounts of money that they have lost individually are life-changing for them. Someone who has worked for 20 years on a Member of Parliament’s salary probably has £20,000 or £30,000 they can afford to lose; these people did not. The amounts they have lost individually are significant; the amount that has been stolen collectively, as I said, is almost certainly over £1 billion. If people stole £1 billion out of a bank vault, law enforcement would not stop until every last one of them was behind bars for a very long time, and would, if need be, change the rules to make sure that it could not happen again. We should regard the theft of £1 billion out of people’s pension funds just as seriously as the theft of £1 billion of gold bullion out of the back of a Securicor van. All this amendment asks is that the Government recognise that as an issue and start to put answers in place as to how they can protect our constituents from falling victim to these scams in future.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate these issues. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is interesting. Certainly I very much support the broad principle of greater scrutiny of the FCA, but I cannot support his amendment because I do not feel that it is effective, not least regarding the issues I raised earlier. Some of the issues in it have already been addressed. The regulatory failures were clearly identified in the excellent Gloster report. The report also—this was welcome—named individuals in the FCA who had failed and who tried to have their names redacted from it and exempted from any specific criticism. One of the cultural issues with the FCA is the lack of individual accountability either in the organisation itself or the organisations they regulate.

In subsection (5)(e) the hon. Gentleman talks about why we are compensating only 80% of the losses of individuals who lost money in London Capital & Finance. That speaks to a broad principle. Many of the investments people make have to be subject to the principle of caveat emptor. Especially with a relatively high-risk investment, it is incumbent on any investor to look at it and judge the risk for themselves. Some form of protection from the regulator is also required, but the regulator cannot be all things to all people and cannot be in all places at once. I had a constituent come to me who had lost a significant amount of money in London Capital & Finance investments, and they were quite clear that they understood that as they were getting an 8% return, whereas in a bank they would probably get 0.5% maximum in interest, there was a risk involved in such investment. It is quite obvious to most people that that is the case, whether they are sophisticated or unsophisticated investors. The broad principle of an investor having to look at the investment and judge for themselves is very important.

Financial Conduct Authority and Blackmore Bond plc

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Before we adjourn, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the collapse last year of Blackmore Bond plc and in particular to look at what the Financial Conduct Authority did, what it could have done, and what it failed to do to prevent this.

Blackmore Bond plc was incorporated in July 2016, went into administration in May 2020, and has since gone into liquidation. Between October 2016 and November 2018, it raised £46 million in loans, known as mini-bonds, almost all of it from small-scale individual investors. They were repeatedly told that their investment was guaranteed to be paid back on time with regular interest payments. By the time the joint administrators had disentangled the company’s financial affairs, it was obvious that none of that £46 million was left to repay the bond holders. Their “guaranteed” investment of £46 million had been reduced to nothing.

Obviously, primary responsibility for that must lie with the company’s directors, Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh, who were also the joint owners not only of Blackmore Bond but of about two dozen related companies. I will disclose some information later that may help Members to understand just how culpable I believe those two are. However, whether their conduct is found, in due course, to be criminal, civilly unlawful or just downright despicable, the scandal yet again raises serious questions about the regulatory framework that allowed Nunn and McCreesh to persuade people to put money they could not afford to lose into high-risk investments where losing everything was always a possibility.

In fact, an experienced investment adviser, looking at the promotional material the company sent out, could only conclude that losing everything was not only a possibility but almost inevitable. That is probably why the directors of Blackmore Bond did not approach investment houses or experienced investors; they deliberately targeted people they thought would be an easy touch.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentions the regulatory framework, and I am sure that he will go on to say whether he feels there were also shortcomings from the regulator itself in this case. The FCA’s attention was drawn to the boiler-room tactics of Blackmore Bond and the fact that it was pretty much a Ponzi scheme back in March 2017, yet three years later the company was still operating. It is simply unacceptable that the FCA should have taken that approach and not been more proactive.

[Peter Grant]

For the second time in a few days, the hon. Gentleman has managed to read my notes a couple of paragraphs ahead of me. I am going to come on to that.

My concerns cover not just the Financial Conduct Authority but other regulators, such as Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the Financial Reporting Council and the professional bodies that regulate the audit of limited companies. Of those, only the FCA falls directly under the remit of the Treasury, so that is what I will focus on tonight, but I will continue to apply for debates so that the part played by other regulators can be examined.

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

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

2nd reading
Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I will confine my remarks to clauses 2 and 3, which are the ones that apply in the whole of the UK. The Minister pointed out that clause 1 does not apply directly to Scotland.

The SNP welcomes the provisions to close the loopholes that have been identified, although they do not go nearly far enough. I am a bit concerned that this is the second or third time recently that a Bill has been brought forward to tighten up on director and company misconduct and company fraud, but it is framed so narrowly that it is almost impossible to amend it to widen its scope or improve it further. Although we will not oppose Second Reading tonight, I hope that we are not too far away from a more comprehensive review of companies legislation with a wider scope so that Members with particular changes they want to see are able to put them forward to be debated by the House.

In effect, the proposals make a slight change to the way in which the directors of a company are allowed to be completely separate from the company itself when things go wrong. The concept of creating a separate legal entity when a limited company is formed is perfectly sound. There were valid reasons for introducing it 150 or 200 years ago, when companies legislation was in its infancy. Many of those reasons are valid today, and we should retain the protection for directors, senior managers and, indeed, shareholders of companies that go to the wall through no fault of their own, through bad luck or misjudgment. But the reasons for protecting company directors do not extend to making it harder to deal with con men, and the occasional con woman, who set out to become millionaires at the cost of other people’s pensions, savings and hard-earned cash.

When there are reasonable grounds to believe that the directors of a company have been guilty of serious misconduct—including criminal misconduct, in some cases—we cannot allow them to delay, reduce or in any way frustrate the result of punitive action just by dissolving the company. That would be like saying that somebody who faces charges under the Road Traffic Acts can get away with it just by scrapping the car. It is not the vehicle that is at fault but the people who were driving the vehicle at the time.

The Government have rightly pointed out that some of the abuses in respect of which they want to tighten up are those carried out by what are called phoenix companies: the directors shut down one company and in essence resurrect the same company, but because they give it a different name, rank and serial number it is legally a different company and all the sins of the previous company are forgotten about.

Directors do not even need to close down the guilty company first: the same abuses can equally well be perpetrated by running two or three—or, in a case I will come to in a moment, 23—parallel companies with exactly the same couple of shareholders and exactly the same couple of directors, and very often no other employees at all. Through a process that is sometimes lengthy, sometimes short, they dump all the liabilities and debts on to one company and shut that one down, while the assets and benefits are hidden away in a separate company, to be shared only by the directors. In those circumstances, surely it is right that the Insolvency Service and other regulators have the unrestricted right to pursue the individual directors, regardless of which company name they hide behind at the time.

It has to be said that if the Government are serious about imposing improved standards of integrity in the City of London, it is unfortunate that they have chosen to present the Bill on the day when one of their own Ministers told the BBC that the standard of integrity in Government conduct by which they want to be judged is what they can get away with electorally. There is a double standard there that is perhaps not directly relevant to this debate, but the Government cannot afford to ignore it.

Let me mention one example of what can go wrong when directors appear to run a company for their own benefit and not for the benefit of those whose money they are supposed to look after. The Nunn McCreesh limited liability partnership was incorporated in August 2012 and dissolved by voluntary strike-off in October 2015. It had only three officers: Phillip Nunn, Patrick McCreesh and a company that they jointly owned called It’s Your Pension Ltd, incorporated in 2013 and dissolved by voluntary strike-off in 2016.

Coincidentally, at the same time that Mr Nunn and Mr McCreesh took the decision to dissolve the limited liability partnership, the Insolvency Service was finding that the LLP had been paid nearly £900,000 for identifying investors for Capita Oak—a name with which Members will be familiar as it was a pension fund that collapsed, taking £120 million of other people’s pensions with it. Capita Oak remains under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; we do not know whether the part played in the Capita Oak story by Nunn McCreesh and numerous other companies is part of that investigation.

Mr Nunn and Mr McCreesh moved on quickly from their dissolved LLP and set up a whole web of companies —23 at the last count—under the Blackmore brand. Between 2016 and 2019, one of these companies, Blackmore Bond plc, raised £46 million by selling high-risk mini bonds to investors that they knew were completely unsuitable for that type of investment. Blackmore Bond plc went into administration in 2020 and the investors have almost certainly lost all of their £46 million.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very interesting case. I am sure he will be aware that the Financial Conduct Authority was warned on numerous occasions about the activities of Blackmore Bond but apparently did nothing about it until it was far too late.

[Peter Grant]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was reading through the back of my notes, but he is only about five or six lines ahead of what I was going to say.

I do not know whether Mr Nunn and Mr McCreesh were ever placed under formal investigation, or whether they might still be under investigation, for their part in the Capita Oak story—for obvious reasons, that kind of information is not shared—but surely the fact that they were able to dissolve their company should not make any difference to the investigations to which they can be subjected and the sanctions they should face if they are found guilty of misconduct in their management of Nunn McCreesh LLP or, indeed, any of the umpteen other companies they have run.

Perhaps if, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) indicated a moment ago, the various regulators had communicated with each other more effectively, the Financial Conduct Authority would have heard loud alarm bells ringing when in 2017 it was alerted to the highly questionable sales techniques that Blackmore Bond was using; perhaps if the FCA had made the link to the dodgy practices in relation to Capita Oak that were carried out by a different company under the same ownership and direction, it would have moved faster than it appeared to do; and perhaps, at least, the investors who ploughed £26 million into Blackmore Bond after the FCA was warned about it would have had some warning that the Blackmore Group might have been better named the Black Hole Group, because that is exactly what it became for £46 million of other people’s money.

I described that one scandal out of the many I could have described to remind the House that we are not just looking at a theoretical loophole here; we are looking at regulatory weaknesses that have allowed chancers and charlatans to make well over £1 billion of other people’s pensions and life savings disappear, and that is before we start to look at the business-to-business frauds that have forced small businesses into liquidation, often at massive financial cost to the entrepreneurs who have set them up.

The provisions in clauses 2 and 3 address just one of those weaknesses, and much more is needed. We need a complete reform of Companies House so that, for example, details of the beneficial ownership of Scottish limited partnerships and other secretive company structures have to be published. We have known for years that SLPs have been used to launder millions of pounds of dirty money created by illicit business activities, usually related to organised crime. We need to see action soon to put a stop to that. We need to reinstate the principle of the reverse burden of proof on senior bank managers, for example. When something goes wrong on their watch, rather than it being up to the authorities to prove that they were negligent, can we go back to requiring the bank manager to prove that they were doing the right thing? This reverse burden of proof often applies in other cases of professional misconduct or questions about professional conduct. All our regulators, including the Insolvency Service and the Financial Conduct Authority, need to be adequately resourced to keep up with the almost limitless ingenuity of the criminals they are trying to keep tabs on. That is about not just the amount of money they have, but the degree of training and experience that their people have, so that the person asked to take a decision as to whether somebody is fit to be registered with the FCA has the experience to know what kinds of warning signs to look out for.

Finally, we need legislation that allows us not just to disqualify directors who are guilty of wrongdoing; it should allow the authorities to order them to pay compensation to the victims. In some cases, I will support that on the basis of a civil balance of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, rather than the much higher bar of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is why so many cases that the Serious Fraud Office takes to court never get as far as a conviction. We welcome the provisions in clauses 2 and 3. If the long title and the scope of this legislation had allowed it, we would have been submitting a significant number of amendments to improve it on Report. I hope the time is not too far away when legislation on the wider issue comes before the House so that directors cannot simply avoid disqualification by scrapping their vehicles.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). I share some of her concerns about ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders pay the most, following the lead of the shadow Chancellor, but it is useful to look at the facts. An interesting survey was carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the BBC on the nations that have the highest proportion of tax on high earners, looking at people earning a quarter of a million pounds a year. The UK is the third highest taxing country in the world—only Italy and India are higher. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) shakes his head, but he can google that. We should clamp down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, but we cannot raise the taxes we want without the negative consequences of people shifting that wealth and income elsewhere.

[Peter Grant]

The shadow Chancellor said at the beginning of the debate that tax is about a lot more than just income tax. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the statistic he just cited relates to all taxes paid by wealthy individuals or only income tax? Does he agree that, if he is only talking about income tax, that statistic is highly misleading?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It related to income tax. [Interruption.] The point I was making was about income tax. The shadow Chancellor talked about raising taxes from the people who earn the most, and I was simply responding to that point. I have said in the Chamber many times that we should clamp down on tax avoidance and tax evasion.

The shadow Chancellor strikes me as the failed football manager turned TV pundit—having lost all his games by a wide margin, he suddenly complains when the incumbent manager is only winning his games 1-0. This Government have done far more to collect avoided and evaded taxes than the previous Administration—that is a fact. We can choose our opinions, but we cannot choose our facts. We need to go further. This is not just about the money; it is about creating a fair and level playing field and building confidence in the system, so that SMEs, which are the lifeblood of our economy and business, feel that they are not playing in a rigged game. It cannot be like that.

It is utterly wrong that we should countenance tax avoidance, because it undermines the level playing field for SMEs, and that has a tangible effect. For example, the Johnston Press, which owns The Yorkshire Post and many other titles around the country, was turning over £177 million in advertising revenue in 2008, and today, that figure is £22 million. There has been a transfer of revenue from areas such as regional press to online advertising, and particularly Google. Johnston Press will have paid its fair share of taxes, as most companies of that size do. Internationally, Google turns over about £100 billion. We know that around 10% of its turnover is in the UK—that is a stated fact—which is £10 billion. Its international profit margin is 22%, which means that it makes £2.2 billion. It should be paying £418 million in corporation tax at 19%, but it pays £67 million. That is simply iniquitous. It cannot be right, and it cannot be sustainable.

I am delighted that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is on the Front Bench, because I want to give another example of where we are not maintaining a fair and level playing field. It relates to some of our banks and Cerberus. UK lenders who pay UK tax have sold their loan books to inactive lenders who work offshore and do not pay corporation tax or operate on the same regulatory playing field. Cerberus, which has bought loan books off Northern Rock and UK Asset Resolution, plays by a completely different set of rules. Its costs are therefore lower, which means that it can afford to pay more for those loan books. It does not properly look after its customers, nor does it have the responsibility to look after them and treat them fairly. We have to make an extra effort to ensure that everybody operates on a fair and level playing field. Cerberus paid £15,000 in corporation tax on six subsidiaries in 2015, despite working on a 20% profit margin.

In terms of my own business experience, our business grew to a point where we were making a reasonable profit. Our adviser—a normal accountant, not one of the big four—said, “How about trying this scheme to avoid tax?” It was perfectly legal, but we refused to take that option, because we did not think that it was right. We need to work harder with advisers and promoters to ensure that everybody pays their fair share of tax. The Government use the big four in many ways and take their advice, and it seems wrong that those very companies then go to large multinational companies and others and show them how to avoid tax.

One of the solutions is country-by-country reporting. We have a precedent for that, with the bookmakers’ point of consumption tax. The Labour party came up with a ruse that involved charging businesses in terms of where their economic activity, people and premises are, and there is very much a basis for that. We need to ensure that what the Government have done through the digital services tax and diverted profits tax narrows the gap for companies such as Google and Facebook.

We need to implement some other key measures, including on transparency about overseas entities and ownership of property, which is a way to avoid tax and move money around the world illegally and unfairly. We need to see measures on beneficial ownership in overseas territories brought forward to 2023. Finally, a corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime and money laundering would reduce the amount of money that is illegally shifted out of the UK into foreign jurisdictions and increase the amount of tax that is paid.

European Free Trade Association

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Peter Grant

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

I note that Scottish Conservatives want to pooh-pooh the idea that 62% of the population of Scotland can just be ignored. My concern about EFTA is not that I do not like what it offers, but that it does not offer nearly as much as we have now. In particular, it does not involve membership of the customs union.

Switzerland does not have what it regards as a hard border with the European Union. Apart from its border with Liechtenstein, it is completely surrounded by land borders with EU countries, but most people travelling in and out do not notice anything like a hard border. Nevertheless, it estimates that approximately 2% of vehicle traffic is stopped and searched. Applying that model to the only land border that the United Kingdom will have with the European Union would result in 200 stop-and-searches a day near the border on the island of Ireland. That is simply not acceptable, and it cannot be allowed to happen.

Even the most favourable—or least unfavourable—scenario for leaving the customs union is likely to create significant security problems in Ireland. It is not just about having a hard border. We have an agreement on all sides that there will be no infrastructure on the Irish border, but it is very difficult for somewhere inside the customs union to have a border with no infrastructure whatever with somewhere outside it. There will be significant repercussions for the whole of Ireland if the United Kingdom leaves the customs union.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Peter Grant]

I really do not have time.

Those repercussions are among the reasons—they are possibly the single most pressing reason—why we have to persuade the Government that they have got it wrong. The unilateral and politically motivated decision to leave the customs union was a mistake, but there is still time for it to be rectified. There is still time for the Government to accept that they got it wrong and that they do not have a referendum mandate to take us out of the customs union or the single market.

I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that the four EFTA countries are among the wealthiest in the world by GDP per capita. It is not only EFTA countries that are in the top 15 or 16, and certainly above the United Kingdom; so are Luxembourg, Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Denmark, none of which are in EFTA but all of which are in the single market. Membership of the single market and the customs union may be a factor, or it may be that all the countries I mentioned and all four EFTA countries have the status of being small, independent, modern European nations—perhaps that is what we should be looking at, but that is an argument for another day.

I must sound a final word of caution. Although hon. Members have referred favourably to the Norwegian and Swiss situations, we were told yesterday in the Exiting the European Union Committee about the Swiss People’s party, which is a bit like UKIP with a Swiss accent but is the biggest single party in the Swiss Parliament. It has initiated the process of calling a referendum—a popular initiative, as the Swiss constitution describes it—to extricate Switzerland from EFTA and pull out from agreements with the European Union. Although a lot of countries originally saw EFTA or the European economic area as part of an accession process to get from nowhere to full membership of the European Union, it appears that there is a big danger of the hard right in Switzerland treating EFTA as a way of cutting its links with the European Union. So let us be careful: we may think that the minority in this House who want a hard Brexit will be satisfied and let things lie if we somehow persuade the Government to go for EFTA, but it will not be long before they seek to follow the Swiss example. They will agitate for a referendum as they did before, not on leaving the European Union this time but on the hardest of all hard Brexits.

As I have said before, and as I think the vast majority of hon. Members believe, a hard Brexit would be economically and socially calamitous for the people of these islands. It is still not too late for the Government to give a guarantee that they will not go for that kind of Brexit. They should not simply say that they want to join EFTA, but go further and say that they want to remain in the single market and the customs union—not for two or three years after we leave the European Union, but for as long as we possibly can.