Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Lord Hain Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too shall speak to Amendment 75. In precisely one week’s time, we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the ratification by the United Kingdom on 30 June 1950 of Convention No. 98 of the International Labour Organization, one of the two most fundamental conventions in international labour law. It has not only been expressly ratified by 167 nations but is considered part of customary international law. Article 4 reads as follows:

“Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.”


Another anniversary will be commemorated on 11 July, for on that day in 1962, as a member of the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom ratified Article 6 of the 1961 European Social Charter. The article reads:

“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Contracting Parties undertake … to promote joint consultation between workers and employers … to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.


This amendment does not seek the fulfilment of the Government’s obligation to promote collective bargaining on the consequences for workers in a company that is running into financial difficulties and the measures such as a moratorium to alleviate them, but it does require the fulfilment of the more modest obligation to promote consultation between workers and employers about such consequences. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to see what objection there could be to the imposition on directors of an obligation to hear from their workers—in this case their employees—their perceptions of and suggestions for ameliorating the company’s situation. Under the Companies Act, directors already have an obligation to take into account the interests of the employees, so it is really not asking much to require them to ask their employees to express their views.

Given that the biggest impact of the moratoria and other measures relating to a company’s financial difficulties will be on the workers whose livelihoods are on the line, why not hear their voices? They will be the most ardent and innovative in finding ways of keeping the company alive. Certainly, the Minister and his team have offered no objection to the principle or the practicality of this so far. All that has been said is that employees are already protected and that the courts have a duty to ensure that arrangements are fair and equitable.

The first point is hopeless. There is no extant legal obligation to hear the voices of workers, no obligation to bargain collectively, no obligation to consult save where collective redundancy procedures apply, and no requirement to have worker directors on the board. The second point is equally without merit. There is no provision for workers to be parties to, to be represented, or even to be heard in the specific court proceedings to which this Bill relates. Without hearing from representatives of the workers in respect of the measures being proposed, how can the court be satisfied that any measure is fair and equitable to them? I urge the Government to accept the amendment and to fulfil at least partly their international legal obligations.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, following the excellent speeches of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady Bryan and Lord Kerslake, I wish to support Amendment 75.

There was a moment during the response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in Committee to various amendments aimed at protecting the interests of a company’s workforce in the moratorium process when I was reminded of the Hatton Garden safe deposit robbery in 2015, the biggest burglary in British legal history. The conspirators in that crime called carving up the proceeds “the slaughter”. One of the gang nearly missed out on the slaughter. He had bailed out after the first attempt to break in because he did not want to risk returning to the scene of the crime. Some of his co-conspirators felt that he had thereby forfeited any share of the proceeds. Fortunately for him, there was honour among thieves, and they relented and gave him a cut.

The Minister argued that workers are already well protected and that consulting employees or their representatives in the moratorium process is unnecessary because the aim of the Bill is to keep companies in business. In his view, consulting employees would risk publicising a firm’s problems before it could be protected from creditor action, leading to more company failures—in short, that the workers should know their place, run along and let their betters deal with the problem. If he had patted them on the head, I would not have been surprised. Surely there should be a less patronising attitude to people who may have invested much of their working lives in a company that is now facing financial distress.

For workers, insolvency puts more than just their jobs in jeopardy. They may have back pay at risk. Their pension rights may be in danger. Their redundancy rights may be under threat and their tax and national insurance responsibilities may be in doubt. Indeed, the company may even have defaulted on payments to HMRC already deducted from their pay. Their employer may be defaulting on its equal pay and equal rights obligations.

Workers have a vital interest in the insolvency process. They deserve a voice in the consultation process and surely the Government cannot deny that; otherwise, they will be left where they are now—on the outside, at the end of a long tail of unsecured creditors, unrecognised, unheard and unwelcome, while the professional insolvency practitioners practise their black arts. Britain’s workers deserve better, and that is the purpose of Amendment 75.

The amendment is very modest, simply requiring companies to consult their workforces. It imposes no vetoes by employees on the moratorium process and specifies no hurdles that have to be surmounted; instead, it simply imposes an obligation to consult. Surely the Government must agree to that principle or, alternatively, endorse an attitude that says in effect that company owners’ rights matter, creditor and debtor rights matter but employee rights do not. I urge the Minister—and, if not, then your Lordship’s House—to support Amendment 75 or, alternatively, as I now understand he might do, at least to give some proper guarantees that employees will not be left in the lurch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I welcome the recognition by the Government in the amendments laid by the Minister of the importance of ensuring that a company pension scheme is not disadvantaged and that the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund are given rights in circumstances where there is a moratorium or negotiations regarding saving the ongoing business.

As the noble Baroness said, Amendment 15 provides the sort of reassurance that not only a pension scheme and its trustees might need but that the entire defined benefit pension system might require should there be the sort of emergency problems that we are passing this legislation to cope with. The assets of a company are sometimes pledged to a pension scheme in order to reduce the amount of cash that the sponsor needs to pay into the scheme. The types of these so-called contingent assets that we are concerned about in this amendment are Type B(ii) and Type B(iii). Type B(ii) are rights over real estate owned by the company and Type B(iii) are securities that have been pledged to the pension scheme. The scheme’s funding will have been based on following significant negotiations over the years to fix funding shortfalls.

What has happened recently gives rise to enormous concern. In 2007, schemes in deficit had a total deficit of around £20 billion. By 2008, that had risen to £100 billion or more. In March 2009, it was £220 billion. At the end of last year, it had fallen to around £165 billion, but the latest figures from the Pension Protection Fund show that the total deficits of schemes in deficit have now reached £290 billion. There is a major shortfall across the defined benefit pension scheme universe. After many years of trustees agreeing with sponsors to allow deficit repair payments, I have significant concerns that these contingent assets could be at risk, given the amendments that have been laid. They give the Pension Protection Fund and the regulator the right to be notified and to participate in such negotiations, but if that will require court challenges rather than being ruled out without Pension Protection Fund permission, there is an ongoing risk that such assets could be approved for sale by the court. That would not only materially weaken the pension fund itself but, should the company then fail, the PPF will have many fewer assets than is currently assumed by its levy calculation. The system itself could then be at risk.

Scheme funding has been agreed over many years. In light of the other measures in this Bill, which could see bank lenders and even intracompany loans accelerate ahead of the pension scheme in an insolvency, there is likely to be a material weakening of DB scheme funding and potential recoveries on insolvency. Therefore, I am concerned that all other DB schemes and their members will be at risk and that the PPF lifeboat may not be secure in the way we currently believe that it is. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to confirm that the Pension Protection Fund will have the necessary powers to prevent the courts selling assets, should that be under consideration. Without that power, it may be too late once those assets have been sold. I agree with my noble friend that these measures improve the situation, but just allowing the PPF and the Pensions Regulator to have appropriate information, the same as other creditors, and the ability to challenge in court in certain circumstances leaves a question mark in one’s mind about how secure the contingent assets pledged to a pension scheme will be after this Bill, as it is currently worded, passes.

[Lord Hain [V]]

My Lords, I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 15, which has been spoken to so eloquently and with unrivalled expertise and authority on this matter by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I am very concerned about the threat to the Pension Protection Fund. I am proud to say that it started life under the last Labour Government in 2005, and I was subsequently Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It is an important lifeboat, but it could be threatened if the consequences of insolvency, particularly with defined benefits, rebound into the PPF.

Although I welcome the concessions and responses that the Minister has made through these amendments, and what he has said as a result of the arguments put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, and others, including my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Warwick, I still think there is a real risk involved. I hope that today, he will give greater recognition to that fact and that he and the Secretary of State will be vigilant in ensuring that the Government are fully cognisant of their concerns about the future viability of the vital Pension Protection Fund.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, I come to this from a slightly different point of view, and I rise to express some concern at the scale of amendments on pensions in this already finely balanced Bill. They may make life difficult for investors, creditors and the forces of enterprise that we need if our economy is ever going to recover from the dreadful coronavirus crisis. While understanding and accepting the government amendments and agreeing on the need for vigilance— in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain—I urge the Minister to go no further and not to accept Amendment 15. It gives too much power to the Pension Protection Fund and could have the perverse consequences of delay, burden and cost to pension funds and to businesses that are in trouble but have a sustainable future.