Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Absolutely. As I said then, it is too early to make this decision. We have to look at the data and we will announce the decision next week. When answering a logical question of, “Are you open to delay?”, if you have not made a decision on whether to delay or not, by dint of logic, you are open to delay. That is, I think, a perfectly reasonable and logical answer to a question. It is an absolute classic: a politician answers a straight question with a straight answer and it causes all sorts of complications.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We have seen in the past year unprecedented restrictions on our freedoms, for reasons that we in this place predominantly entirely understand—the pressure on our national health service and the escalating hospitalisations and death rates. Given the statistics that the Secretary of State has just published and the tremendous success of the vaccination programme in preventing hospitalisations of people doubly vaccinated, what additional freedoms are won for those people, and should we now be considering whether people who have been doubly vaccinated should be able to get additional freedoms as it appears that they will not be the cause of large numbers of hospitalisations in the future?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously a mentor of his former leader, Tony Blair, who made this case at the weekend. We are looking into this question for certain occasions. It will be necessary for international travel. However, in this country we have moved together—everyone is treated equally—in the same way that the virus treats us equally. I note that Israel, which did bring this proposal in, has now removed it.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am delighted that we managed to sort out the wrinkle that we had with the supplies of vaccine to Scunthorpe. It was a really good example of how this should work: my hon. Friend spoke up for Scunthorpe, and then the Minister got it fixed. I am very glad that we managed to sort that, and if there are any further problems, please do let me know.

We are inviting people who are over 50 and have a second jab booked 12 weeks after their first to rebook their vaccination from eight weeks after—not before eight weeks, because the effectiveness of the second jab strengthens for those first eight weeks. They can do that on the national booking system or through calling 119. We are texting those whose numbers we have to communicate with them. There is a whole process in place to get people rebooked wherever possible.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

People in Chesterfield are looking forward to getting back to the football stadium this weekend. I am not sure we will enjoy it quite as much as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) did this weekend; none the less, it is incredibly important to everyone. For that reason, they are understandably worried by the increase of the Indian variant, so it is important that we understand the decisions. I heard what the Health Secretary had to say about the reasons why he thought it was appropriate for India to be put on the list later than Pakistan and Bangladesh, but there will be those who think that the Prime Minister’s impending trip to India was a factor. We know there is an inquiry coming down the track. Will the Health Secretary confirm and clarify that there were no discussions, when the decision was made to put India on the red list later than Pakistan and Bangladesh, about the economic consequences, the Prime Minister’s trip or anything like that, and that it was purely health considerations that were in play?

[Matt Hancock]

These decisions are based on the evidence, and the Joint Biosecurity Centre puts forward the evidence for red-listing. In the first instance, the red list is there to stop new variants, but this variant was not a known variant under investigation. Because of the increase in the overall rates—the overall positivity—of people coming to this country, first from Pakistan and Bangladesh at the start of April, and then towards the end of April from India, we took the precautionary decision to put them on the red list. That is a matter of fact; I am happy to state that. The job now is to make sure we keep this all under control.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, we are working exactly on how to demonstrate that in a numerical rather than a narrative form, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend sets out. We have seen a very sharp rise in cases across Bedfordshire, especially in the more rural areas, including North East Bedfordshire, so it is so important that people across Bedfordshire take that personal responsibility and follow the new tier 3 rules. I hope that we can get the rate to come down as fast as it has gone up.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]]

People across Chesterfield will be very disappointed that, with all the work that they have done and with Chesterfield having lower transmission rates than some of the areas in tier 2, they remain in tier 3. They will be especially disappointed by the Health Secretary’s suggestion that the communities that have worked hardest and been the most disciplined are the ones that are in tier 2. We know that that is not the case. Does he not realise that, if the Government could offer a support package that supported our hospitality sector, and if they were not, at the very last minute, announcing changes to our schools just two days before they break up, there would be more credibility to the sense that it is personal responsibility that is the problem here, rather than the ineptitude of this Government?

[Matt Hancock]

No.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I am tempted to try to give an answer to that question, but it is very much a matter for the MHRA. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the good wishes that he sends. In the Department these days, we no longer say at the end of a week, “I hope you have a good weekend.” We say, “I hope you have a weekend.” Likewise, I share his hope that we have a happy Christmas, but frankly I hope I get a Christmas.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Pubs in tier 2 areas are very heavily regulated environments, and in tier 3 they are completely closed. Nothing like the same restrictions are in place on public transport, in retail shops, in care homes and in other areas where we have seen much more of a spread than in pubs. Will the Health Secretary consider not just shifting areas from tier 2 to 3 when tier 2 clearly is not working, but rethinking his whole approach so that the pub sector is given the support it needs? It is actually a much more regulated, much safer environment than many of the areas that the Government have not regulated.

[Matt Hancock]

Many of the facilities that the hon. Gentleman talks about, such as care homes, are doing unbelievable work to remain covid secure. I understand the impact on hospitality. I love the hospitality businesses of our country—I love going to pubs—but unfortunately we need to tackle this virus, which means that some very difficult decisions are necessary.

Coronavirus Vaccine

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am very glad that we changed the law to allow the MHRA to make this authorisation on UK terms. This House voted unanimously to do that—well, we did not even have a vote as it went through without one. I am really glad that we were able to do that. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for his support and encouragement throughout this period. It has been a very, very long year as Health Secretary and I really appreciate his support.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Health Secretary spoke about learning lessons and continuing to improve the system. My partner’s daughter is currently self-isolating because someone in her class at school has got coronavirus. She comes home and lives with her sister who is still expected to go to school. Surely a world-class testing system would be testing everyone in the bubble of those who had been sent home so that immediate family could be identified as having the virus or not, and could take appropriate action. Is there any more that can be done to improve this so that people such as my partner and many other parents at Holymoorside school will be able to take the necessary steps?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, we are piloting exactly that idea in, I think, eight schools right now and I hope to be able to roll it out once we have learned from those pilots.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely. Support proportionate to the support made available to Lancashire is on the table. We are willing to meet anybody from Greater Manchester to help make this happen, and it is best done as a team effort. The offer was there on the table. I, like my hon. Friend, regret that it was not taken forward. However, I hope that council leaders in Wigan, colleagues from across the House and, if he wants, the Mayor will come back to the table and work together for the people of Greater Manchester.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Health Secretary’s attempt to divide and rule the Mayor and the Members of Parliament in Manchester is absolutely transparent. It is shameful that some of those Conservative colleagues, who have been working collectively, should collapse like they appear to be doing today. Does it not say everything about this Government that they should believe £7,000 a day is an adequate amount to pay consultants to work on his failing track and trace programme, but £8 per head is more than enough for people in Manchester and right across the north and the midlands to go into this tier 3 after the tier 2 programme has not worked?

[Matt Hancock]

On the contrary, we are working hard across party lines and trying to rise above that sort of political attack to work for the benefit and the public interests of everybody in this country.

Covid-19 Update and Hospitality Curfew

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We will keep these measures always under review.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]]

I accept what the Secretary of State has said about the science, but he must realise that there were many publicans who were really struggling to get by before this, and the new things that have been put in have just made their businesses untenable. Does he accept that getting support for the measures that he has put in place has to come with a financial package that supports our publicans to remain open after covid?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of covid-19 test availability.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

We have developed capacity to over 200,000 antigen tests per day across the testing programme. We are planning for the next phase of testing and are committed to rapid and accessible testing at scale for everyone who needs one. Localisation of testing in accessible places is absolutely critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has put in over the summer to make sure that the challenges we have seen in Newcastle-under-Lyme are dealt with as well as possible. Of course, when we put in extra testing and extra mobile testing units, making sure that that is tied in with the online booking system is critical. I am very happy to work with him to resolve the specific issues in Newcastle.

[Mr Perkins]

Alongside the need to increase capacity, there is a real need to make sure that what is already there is working properly. In Chesterfield, I have had many people contact me over the summer to say they have been waiting four or five days to get a test result back. I have also had people who have applied online and been told to go for testing 20 or 30 miles away, when there is a testing centre in Chesterfield. With Chris Hopson of the NHS Providers organisation saying that the current system is not even

“fit for purpose, much less world class”,

will the Secretary of State tell us what he can do to ensure that the system is ready when we approach the potential increase in cases in the autumn and winter?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, we are constantly working to improve the system, but as the statistics that I read out at the start of this Question Time show, we have made very significant progress over the summer. NHS test and trace is just over three months old, and is now reaching 84% of contacts when contacts are given. On testing expansion, of course when a testing site is full, people will be directed to a nearby but not immediately close testing centre. That does sometimes happen when there is an increase in demand for testing, but we try to respond by putting in more testing where it is needed and in the highest-risk areas, of which, thankfully, Chesterfield is not one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this—it is true that that the NHS has had to rise to address the scandal over mesh. There is a lot of work still to be done.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T3. The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that we need to take advantage of all the medical evidence. In the light of that, is it not deeply damaging for the Prime Minister to go on morning television and start musing on the idea that we might have a theory of letting coronavirus have its bounce out and see how it goes? Does that not absolutely fly in the face of the efforts that the Secretary of State is making? Can he clarify that that is not the policy of this Government and tell us what the hell the Prime Minister was talking about?

[Matt Hancock]

No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong to raise this issue in this way. It was addressed in the House yesterday actually—the Prime Minister was explaining that that is not Government policy.

NHS Long-Term Plan: Implementation

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, it will in all circumstances. This is a firm commitment, supported right across this House and right across our party, and it will be delivered. There is absolutely no question about that.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We know that areas of greater deprivation have greater health needs than other areas. Will the Secretary of State tell us what more there is in the long-term plan specifically about increasing the resources for GP practices that serve areas of greater deprivation? They have longer waiting times and greater vacancy lists and we need specific action to support those practices.

[Matt Hancock]

Making sure that we have the right allocations for CCGs across the country that reflect the needs of the local population is a very important responsibility for NHS England—as the commissioner of those services—to make sure that the money follows need. After all, the principle of the NHS is that it is available to everybody according to need, not ability to pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the £20,000 bonus is an important part of the solution, but so is having more GPs, and the fact that we have a record number of people going into GP training at the moment is great news that Members in all parts of this House should welcome.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

T7. A huge number of GP surgeries are struggling to recruit, and meanwhile lots of locums are making a lot more money being locums than working on permanent GP contracts. Will the Secretary of State consider offering his state-backed indemnity to those who commit to being on a permanent contract with a GP surgery?

[Matt Hancock]

Of course the nature of being in a GP practice is changing. For a long time practices, which are essentially private businesses, also had the benefit of rising property prices that brought additional income on top of their income from the NHS. That is no longer the case because property is so expensive, so many people are changing the way that GPs are employed, so they are directly employed rather than through practices. That move is happening, but it is just one of the many changes we are seeing to try to make sure that being a GP is sustainable, and clearly things are starting to improve because a record number of people are choosing to become GPs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set out that we are seeking to do a deal to ensure the future of European Union nationals resident here. We are also open to the brightest and the best from around the world. But the single most important thing for keeping the creative industries thriving in Scotland is remaining part of the United Kingdom.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

3. Whether she has made a comparative assessment of the number of ATP Futures and Challenger-level tennis tournaments held in the UK and in other European countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s long-standing and effective campaign on late payment. The amendments did not work technically, but I am prepared to consider anything to tackle the culture of late payment. We will make 30 days the normal payment term and 60 days the maximum. That is the culture change we need, and I look forward to working with her to make it happen.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to be entering the realms of fantasy when he claims that the limited steps the Government have taken will put an

“end to the UK’s late payment culture once and for all.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1357.]

According to the latest BACS figures, there were more than £46 billion of late payments last year—the highest figure on record—and that figure has continued to grow over the course of this Government. How much and by when would late payments need to fall for him to consider his steps successful in eradicating this culture once and for all?

[Matthew Hancock]

We do need to eradicate that culture, and I have already set out the steps we are taking. However, may I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Business Secretary on this issue and many others over the past five years? We have had an incredibly business-like relationship working hard in the Business Department, and I pay tribute especially to his work on getting an industrial strategy that all parties in the House are now signed up to; to his work on women on boards; and on late payment. It has been a great pleasure, and I look forward to working with him in the future, too.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

That is an excellent question. The whole reason this issue is being placed in secondary legislation is that we recognise that there is a very difficult balance to strike. The formula needs to be dependent on the relationship of the investment to the value of the pub. For some pubs, a £30,000 investment might be substantial. For a town centre or city centre pub, a £200,000 investment might not be so substantial. There needs to be some sort of relationship between the rateable value of a pub, the amount that it turns over, and the amount of investment.

The hon. Gentleman is echoing my point, which is that this has been left very open. A great deal of work would need to be done. I assure the House that under a future Labour Government the principles laid out by Baroness Neville-Rolfe are exactly how we would see this. I anticipate that the same would be true of a Liberal Democrat-influenced Administration, although it would be good to hear the Minister clarify that. It would also be good to hear from the Conservative party whether its manifesto will follow the Bill’s principles, or whether it will take a different approach. The industry and campaigners have the right to expect that.

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

For the record, the Conservative party’s position on this issue is exactly the same as that of the Government.

[Toby Perkins]

Excellent. I am glad that that has been placed on the record. That will give people considerable confidence in the Bill, and many campaigners will be grateful to hear what the Minister has just said. In the unlikely event of a Conservative victory, we will hold him to it.

[Matthew Hancock]

Get ready.

[Toby Perkins]

We understand that Lynton Crosby has been telling the Conservatives to get ready for the past four or five months, but they never seem to reach the point he promises. We will no doubt debate that over the next six weeks.

The Government’s Lords amendment 39 replaces clause 42. We were proud to support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West. We did not think that Report stage was the time to get into a detailed discussion of all the nuances of each individual line, and we know that a tremendous amount of work went into drafting a clause that would offer all the necessary protections. We felt, however, that ultimately it was too prescriptive and could have unintended consequences, and we are pleased to have worked with the Government on the drafting of the new provision.

Lords amendment 39 retains the triggers of renewal of tenancy, rent assessments and significant and unexpected price increases or other events beyond the tenant’s control that have a significant impact on their level of trade. The amendment omits the transfer of title and administration triggers that were in the original clause.

On balance, we support that omission, albeit not without reservation. We believe that the impact on the natural order of a competitive market that would have resulted from pub tenants having the right to opt out at the point of transfer of title would have caused a real disincentive to invest. Ironically, it would have meant that when a pub was sold from a major pub chain to a microbrewer, fledgling pub operator or family brewer, the MRO could have been triggered, acting as a disincentive to the sort of business transaction we want to support and encourage as part of the diversification of the pub market.

That means that campaigners and the next Government will need to be vigilant to prevent any attempts to use the amendment to game the legislation and exempt from the rights companies with any association with companies that we would expect the legislation to cover. The Minister in the other place has made specific the Government’s intentions and we have heard that there is consistency across the coalition.

On the subject of tenants of pub-owning companies that go into administration, we fear that, at a time when the whole future of a large number of pubs would be very uncertain, the original provision would have made the task of the administrator a great deal more difficult. When they would be attempting to bring order to a complicated situation, some of the stock they were trying to sell off to new providers would disappear and move into the free trade sector. We concluded that that would make it much more difficult for pubs to survive in the event of a major pub-owning company failure. For those reasons, we support those omissions from Lords amendment 39.

On Lords amendments 47 to 53, we are pleased that the Government have not sought to reintroduce to the code pub-owning companies with fewer than 500 pubs. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and I have enjoyed many a to and fro on the subject during the Bill’s various stages, but I remain of the view that, in voting the way we did, some egregious practices may not be covered by the protections. However, without that concession, we would have been less likely to win the support of the House for the MRO option. In the final analysis, that prize was worth the sacrifice. As a gesture of good will to the industry and as a matter of honour, this House should stick to what we have given it to believe we were legislating on, namely a code containing provisions for businesses owning more than 500 pubs. We are therefore pleased to support the Government’s commitment.

The Government have probably got the balance right in Lords amendment 47, which accepts our suggestion of extending code protections—apart from the MRO option—to tenants whose pubs are sold from a pub-owning company covered by the Bill’s provisions to a company outside the Bill’s scope.

Lords amendment 46 also performs a delicate balancing act by retaining the protection for pub-owning brewers to offer free of tie while also retaining their right to insist that their product is marketed. The question I asked the Minister is important, because some pub-owning brewers might think that retaining their stock and the right to market it is more important than their wholesale business. In that eventuality, if a brewer stops selling through their wholesale business, which they are perfectly entitled to do, a tenant who is in principle free of tie will still be forced, under the provision, to buy from that brewer as the only option available. We will need to look at that again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I am grateful for that intervention. I, too, have personal experience of poor payment performance having a massive impact on the businesses I worked in. Frankly, the late payment culture is a problem with our contract law. Good contract law means good payment against a contract. I think these transparency measures will have a significant impact, changing prompt payment from being an issue for finance directors to being an issue for the board. Through these transparency measures, we will not allow it to be deemed reasonable to pay late. I think that 60 days as a maximum and 30 days as a norm is a perfectly reasonable place to settle.

[Toby Perkins]

I fear that the Minister is rather over-selling the measures he proposes, welcome though they are. When he says that 30 days will be the norm and 60 days the exception and nothing beyond it, will he make clear what happens when businesses do not pay within that time frame? What sanctions will they face under this new regime?

[Matthew Hancock]

There are already sanctions under EU law relating to interest payments, but the transparency measures will crucially mean that we can have league tables of payment performance. The transparency in this area, alongside the public sector payment practices, will change the culture. We considered and debated in detail going further in changing contract law, but a contract is signed up to by both sides, and no practical amendment was put down to make it more binding than the existing law, which already says that 60 days should be the maximum unless both sides agree to it. Any contract, of course, has to be agreed to by both sides. It is a matter of finding a way to make this practical in law.

Part 2 deals with regulatory reform, and the Bill brings forward significant measures to reduce the burden of regulation. The small business appeals champion will ensure that small businesses’ concerns about regulators are heard. There was extensive debate in the other place on whether the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be excluded from these measures.

We have always maintained that the EHRC should not be subject to the duty to appoint a champion and had originally considered that an exemption in secondary legislation would be sufficient. Concerns were expressed, however, that this might put at risk the EHRC’s “A” status as a national human rights institution. In the light of those concerns, we agreed to eliminate this potential risk by excluding the EHRC from scope of the duty on the face of the Bill.

On the business impact target, the other place questioned the definition of voluntary and community bodies in clause 27. The Government listened to this concern and amendment 28 simplifies the definition by removing the minimum membership threshold for certain smaller unincorporated associations. It also ensures that such bodies are not excluded from the proposed definitions of small and micro businesses later in the Bill by virtue of the size of their membership. Those are relatively technical changes. The principle of a business impact target to ensure that in future Governments are transparent—as this Government have been—about the impact of their overall regulatory approach on the burdens of business was well supported, and is made clear in the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 12th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

We constantly review the scheme to ensure that we get the best possible deal. The majority of the enterprise finance guarantee goes through other banks, which, as far as we know, are performing impeccably. On the RBS aspect, we have met RBS to discuss that. It is reviewing the matter, and we will make sure that it works in the future. The big picture is that the scheme is working well and helping small firms to access finance.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Following a year of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) raising this issue, RBS has admitted that there has been mis-selling of the EFG scheme.

Rebuilding confidence in our banking sector will be one of the key tasks facing the next Labour Government. From interest rate swaps to tax evasion and now mis-selling of EFG loans, the Government have been slow to act and slow to investigate whether there are problems. Does the Minister now accept that only through investigating and repairing mis-selling in Britain’s high street banks will confidence in the sector return?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek, because the investigation required, and the sorting out of confidence in banks, was an enormous issue that we had to take on in 2010. We have regulated and passed legislation throughout this Parliament to ensure that there is more confidence in the banking industry. Of course, there is more to do, but considering how far we have come over the last five years, the hon. Gentleman ought to be saying we have done a good job and be helping us to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The timing of the announcement was clearly very difficult, but we are doing all we can to support those affected by the decision. Both the Secretary of State, who was constantly in touch with the company and the unions over Christmas, and I are working hard to support those affected.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

One of the things that the Government could do to support small businesses is to support Labour’s plans to outlaw pay to stay agreements. We very much welcome the fact that, on the back of pressure from the Opposition, Premier Foods has ceased its pay to stay arrangements. The Government say that such arrangements are unacceptable, but at the same time they refuse to outlaw them. Does the Minister consider some forms of pay to stay acceptable, or are the Government so hostile to any form of regulation that they are willing to stand by while unacceptable business practices evolve and to leave small firms at the mercy of their big business customers?

[Matthew Hancock]

I know that the hon. Gentleman likes to chip in to this debate, but recent events have clearly demonstrated the power of transparency in relation to late payment to small business. As he knows, we are radically improving the position through the small business Bill. When the contracts came to light, the company was held to account and did a U-turn. [Interruption.] They were brought to light by the Federation of Small Businesses, to which I pay tribute for its work in highlighting the issue.

Small Business Saturday

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 4th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate about small business Saturday, so ably and eloquently opened by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who represents the city of my birth. He is a great ally and friend of small businesses in Chester and beyond. He talked about the difficulties of retail space in Chester—its cost, and the accompanying business rates—and I know very well what he was talking about, because it was the pounding ground of my youth. I am sure that shopkeepers, whether their shops are old or new, will welcome the increase of small business rate relief for retail outlets to £1,500, which was announced yesterday. I hope it will allow them to put the small business Saturday card in their windows, and participate in the day, with even more enthusiasm.

The debate has been positive and cross-party, and small business Saturday has strong cross-party support. I want to answer the first of the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins)—I almost called him my hon. Friend; we spend so much time together these days that it is almost coming to that—about what the Government are doing to promote small business Saturday. We are putting a huge amount of effort into doing that, but crucially it is a bottom-up, small business-led campaign.

The idea came, of course, from the United States of America, and when we were approached to build it up in the UK we were very keen. However, we are also keen that the Government should not take the lead. I acknowledge the work done by the Opposition Front Benchers to ensure that the enterprise is truly cross-party. Therefore, although the Government have put effort in, we have chosen not to take a lead. It is far better for small business Saturday to be led by the hundreds of thousands, and hopefully in due course millions, of small businesses that participate.

[Toby Perkins]

I agree entirely with the Minister; but he does not usually hide his light under a bushel, so can he be a little more specific? He said that the Government have put in a huge amount of effort, so what specifically have they done?

[Matthew Hancock]

Most of the support has been on the communications front, through the brilliant Michelle Ovens, to whom I pay tribute for leading the private organisation for small business Saturday. The communications effort last year included hosting the small business Saturday bus in Downing street and ensuring that the Government communication machine came in behind small business Saturday. This year we will hold a street market in Downing street, and we have invited 100 of the most exciting small businesses in the country. The street stalls are already being constructed in Downing street, to make it an exciting part of the day. The market will run from tomorrow, in advance of and into small business Saturday. We will have Ministers from the Prime Minister down fanning out across the country to celebrate the day, and I am sure that even the Business Secretary will get involved.

What we have done has mainly been on the communications side; but to that must be added the policy changes we have made. The Government are incredibly enthusiastic about small business. Of course, a stable and growing economy is the No. 1 thing that can help small business. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) talked about the problems of late payment, and the effect of a big customer going bust or going into liquidation. That happened to my family business when I was growing up. It is a very painful memory, because we were days away from going bust, which would have had serious consequences not only for the 20 or so people we employed, for whom we felt a responsibility, but for my mother and stepfather, who worked in the business. I thought my hon. Friend put it incredibly powerfully. Of course, not only is High Peak one of the most beautiful parts of the country, but it has had 2,600 start-ups since 2010, when he became the local representative.

The stable macro-economy makes an important contribution to small businesses. On tax, the hon. Member for Chesterfield said that it was not important to reduce taxes on profits. I know it is his party’s policy to oppose that reduction, and I do not want to get too much into that, but the point is that reducing corporation tax sends out a signal that we support and celebrate businesses of all sizes and allows businesses to be attracted to the UK. At the same time, we have to tackle business rates, and we propose to do so with a review, which will report after the election. Business rates raise over £20 billion, so they make a significant fiscal contribution, but the complaints I receive are mostly about their design; they become an overhead, rather than being related to the amount of turnover or profit. They are a higher-risk tax than either corporation tax on profits or taxes on the pay of employees, such as national insurance.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has declared that we will continue to have the lowest corporation tax in the G8. On business rates, when Government set out on a review, they usually have an idea of what they want to find at the end of that. We accept that a lot of evidence will come in before the report’s final make-up becomes clear, but will the Minister give us an idea of what the Government see the end point looking like?

[Matthew Hancock]

We announced the review yesterday, so the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not have its conclusions today. However, we can see the direction of travel. We have reduced the impact of business rates on retail outlets and capped the increase in business rates. We have also extended the discount through small business rate relief, which, when the previous Government left office, was about to close. We have continually extended that—we have done so for a further year from 1 April this year, so we can see the direction of travel.

We will want to get the details right, so we are very keen to hear about how we do that from small businesses, their representative bodies and others with an interest. However, I take the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, that small business people do not have the time to go and lobby their MPs because they are too busy running their businesses. He is absolutely right about that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) made a powerful speech about small businesses in Basingstoke. Let me answer her questions specifically. Am I satisfied with connectivity for small businesses? No, I am not. We are rolling out broadband and increasingly the country is being covered by superfast broadband. The roll-out of 4G has helped with connectivity, but none of these things is complete. I have visited a centre that conducts research into 5G, which is an exciting technology, but the most exciting thing about it is that the research began even before the roll-out of 4G started, which is a sign that we have our eyes on the future. There is a lot of work to do to get all that right. Places in the world such as South Korea are absolutely miles ahead of us on this issue, and we need to keep pushing hard.

My right hon. Friend asked about women in work and promoting female entrepreneurs, and she and I have worked on that in the past. A record number of women are in work, and I am also glad that the gender pay gap has come down to a record low. The details show that for those under the age of 40, the gender pay gap has all but been eliminated. I would like to see it eliminated altogether, but that is a big, positive change.

Undoubtedly, the most important things for female entrepreneurs are exactly the same things that help male entrepreneurs—making it easier to employ people, making it easier to start a business and having a stable macro-economy—but there are specific things that can particularly help. My right hon. Friend spoke about the challenges of running a small business while supporting a family, and in many cases being the primary support for a family. I know about that very well—not as a mother, but as a son—because my mother ran our family’s small business. I remember very well sitting on her knee as a child while she worked on the finances of the business. She truly was juggling things, almost literally. We have tried across this Parliament to push the extension of support for child care, and I know that Members on both sides support that.

My right hon. Friend asked specifically about social enterprise. The things that make it easy to run an enterprise that is primarily for profit are the sorts of things that can help expand a social enterprise, but we can do—and have done—more specific things to support social enterprise. That, again, is a cross-Government piece of work, because work comes out of all the different Departments to make it easier to grow social enterprises. I am glad to see that the number of social enterprises is rising as well as the number of small businesses.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) also discussed women in business. She talked about local heroes, some of whom I had not even heard of, so I was very glad to hear about those. She spoke specifically about linking enterprise to schools—that is a big agenda that she may hear more about in coming weeks—and particularly about ensuring that schools promote enterprise and business as an exciting and viable future. We have tried to get more people from all sorts of walks of life, including from business, into schools directly to interact with pupils. In fact, we have put a duty on schools to open up to external employers, business people and others, in order to lift horizons and engage more with students. I know that there is more to do on that agenda.

The next steps we need to take are these: we need to make sure that we continue the drive so that where regulation is necessary, it is easier to navigate, and we need to deregulate where possible. We have saved businesses over £1.5 billion in annual costs. We have scrapped or improved 84% of health and safety regulations; thousands of small businesses have been removed from proactive health and safety inspections, for example.

We also have to do more on exports, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). When our major trading partners are struggling and, in some cases, in recession, exports are more difficult, but many small businesses get into exports either by accident or because they have found a particular niche. Many small businesses increasingly find that if they start a website with their product on it, they end up fulfilling an order somewhere else around the world, and that is how they get into exporting. However, fewer than half of businesses have websites through which they can trade—that is, websites on which money changes hands. That point is linked to the one about expanding connectivity, because being able to trade through a website is important.

We are also simplifying and streamlining how businesses access our support services. The website greatbusiness.gov.uk is a single place where businesses can now go for all support from Government and others. We heard the reports from small businesses that the offer of support from Government was often confused and in lots of different pots, so we have brought it all together in one place.

Several hon. Members mentioned the business bank and the need for such a bank. That is absolutely right, so I am delighted that on 1 November the British business bank was given independent status and is now fully functioning. Yesterday, in the autumn statement, it got £400 million of extra support. I am excited about the potential of the business bank. I have already seen it in action—I have visited some of the schemes that it supports—and it is undoubtedly helping with access to finance. However, the biggest thing that we can do to support access to finance is to get the banking system as a whole on an even keel and supporting small businesses. I welcome news of moves in that direction by some of the big banks. There is undoubtedly more local engagement, but this is a long journey after a long journey in the wrong direction in the previous decade or more.

There are 760,000 more small businesses now than there were in 2010. There is a record number of small businesses in the UK—5.2 million. These are the vast majority of businesses in the UK—we could call them the 99%. Conservative Members support them wholeheartedly. There is support across the House for small business Saturday and the work that its promoters are doing to make it a first-rate success. I know that 40% of local authorities were involved in small business Saturday last year. For the first year of an enterprise, that was pretty impressive, but we want to do better and we want small business Saturday to grow and grow.

In my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, small businesses have someone who is passionate in his support of them. There are few who would be a better champion of them; there are few whom it would be better to have on their side. I pay tribute to him and the work that he has done, not only as the Prime Minister’s small business ambassador for the north-west of England but nationally, through this debate and many other activities, to ensure that people know about small business Saturday this Saturday. I hope that people will shop small, shop local and support small businesses on Saturday and throughout the rest of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The 22,000 firms that have received start-up loans have been supported, but the new British Business Bank, something that we have not had before, has supported £2.3 billion of financing, a lot of it to the scale-up firms that he is talking about. Ultimately, we need a strong banking system. After the chaos the banking system was left in, we have been turning that around with stronger regulation. Banking balance sheets are starting to improve and move in the right direction, but it has taken an awfully long time to turn the mess around.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

As we head towards small business Saturday, which enjoys the support of the entire House, one group of small businesses that will be feeling better supported and be looking forward with more optimism are the nation’s tied pub tenants. The run-up to Tuesday’s vote saw the Government mired in confusion, as last-minute changes and amendments were proposed and dropped with alarming speed. Will the Minister tell the House what steps he will be taking to ensure that this important change is delivered in a way that works for everyone who cares about Britain’s great pubs?

[Matthew Hancock]

We are considering and reflecting on the will of the House as it was expressed this week, but be in no doubt that it is this Government who support pubs and publicans more than possibly any Government before: the first cut in beer duty in decades, two cuts in beer duty, and support through ensuring there is community support for pubs. We will not rest in our support for British pubs.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is dead right about that and he anticipates my next paragraph. We have also strengthened measures to support prompt payment, acting both to increase transparency, so that when companies do not pay on time that is made clear, and to strengthen public sector prompt payment so that the sector can lead by example. I am grateful for that intervention.

We have also included a new clause on home businesses to remove the incentive, dating from a very old Act of Parliament, for landlords to prohibit tenants from operating a business from home. Home businesses are the hotbed of enterprise; 70% of new businesses are started at home, and we want to make it easier for that to happen. We have also strengthened support for the early-years pupil premium to help three and four-year-olds from less well-off backgrounds by amending the Bill to enable Departments to disclose to local authorities information on eligibility, while ensuring that unlawful disclosure of such data continues to be an offence.

Questions were raised in Committee about the scrutiny of complaints handling procedures in the financial services sector, so we have introduced a measure to require the independent complaints commissioners to produce an annual assessment of complaints handling. That will ensure that processes are fair and accessible to all complainants, including small business.

Finally, on pubs, the Government have listened and responded to the concerns about the burdens the measures would place on family brewers and removed these smaller companies from the scope of the code during the passage of the Bill. Yesterday, we saw the House express its will, and we will reflect on that vote during the Bill’s further passage.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Is the Minister not being a little disingenuous to suggest that the Government have listened to what the Committee said, because they voted against the Committee on the family brewers issue and indeed yesterday they tabled another amendment to try to defeat the will of the House on that matter? Is not the truth that the Government have realised this is a battle they cannot win and they have given in?

[Matthew Hancock]

No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, no amendments were moved yesterday on family brewers. We will reflect on the vote on the larger pubcos and the mandatory free-of-tie option as the Bill continues its passage in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

Of course I take your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall attempt to crack on but, as we said yesterday, the programme order gives us a pathetically short period of time to debate the Bill.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

I shall give way in a moment.

Indeed, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) tabled amendments, but he did not even have the opportunity—

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

I can see you, but I am saying something at the moment. The hon. Member for Huntingdon wished to move an amendment—

[Toby Perkins]

I think that that rather makes my point, Madam Deputy Speaker.

At the start of the Bill’s passage, our objectives were clear—[Interruption.] The Minister for Business and Enterprise is getting angry now. I appreciate that he has had a pretty difficult couple of days, but he should have been apologising last night not to the Prime Minister, but to all the publicans he was trying to get in the way of and all the people he has let down. He turned up late to the start of the Bill’s proceedings in Committee and its passage has been a shambles. If this is his Churchillian way of taking measures through Parliament, he should have spent a little more time at the knee of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he might have learned a little more.

[Matthew Hancock]

You are an embarrassment.

[Toby Perkins]

Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman is the one who ought to be a bit embarrassed.

Let me continue by talking about pub companies. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for much of yesterday’s debate, but had he been, he would have realised why we were able to convince people that the Government’s proposals on pub companies did not go nearly far enough and that real change was needed. It is a matter of tremendous pride that we were able to convince hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their will in support of the market rent only option. The Minister’s attitude and the approach that he is taking demonstrate how the Government have lost all the arguments on that. I am glad to see that they are not going to try to bring the family brewers back into the scope of the measure, even though he is wrong to say that no amendment was withdrawn yesterday. A series of amendments were withdrawn yesterday that would have attempted to bring the family brewers back in. I hope he reflects carefully before attempting to change in another place something that was the will of this House.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

That was a bizarre contribution in a number of ways. First, we have said we are going to support what the Government are doing so he was factually wrong in that regard. But saying that by giving a single example of how it might work I was suggesting that that example would always work in every single case is a complete straw man. That contribution did not take us anywhere, so let us move on.

In Committee we tabled amendments that would have required the Secretary of State to initiate an independent assessment of the functions on export finance and how to improve awareness of the body. Unfortunately the Government did not accept our amendments. But the next Labour Government will make it a central mission to boost exports. Within that, there is a role for examining the overall way in which UK Export Finance works, but I would be hesitant at this stage about saying that, on that basis, the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion should be supported. She may be minded to explore the issue today and consider whether to push it to a future stage.

On amendment 92, we strongly agree with the principle that Ministers should be accountable to Parliament for their performance in supporting businesses, and I accept what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said about not wanting a series of meaningless measures with things being deregulated just for the sake of deregulation. I also think, however, that having a deregulatory target has some value in ensuring that Governments and their civil servants are constantly conscious of the impact of any proposed new regulations. We thus think the deregulatory target has some value, as I say, although I share some of the hon. Lady’s reservations about how it will work.

Public procurement is a hugely important function of government. Central Government spend about £45 billion a year on the purchase of goods and services, and ensuring that more of that money delivers for the UK economy is one of the most valuable things that any Government can do. We are absolutely behind ensuring that the power of UK Government procurement delivers for the real economy. That is the principle behind our amendment 1, which outlines three areas in which such value can be found for our constituents, constituencies and communities, ensuring that proper reports are made and kept in each of those areas.

There is much good practice around the country coming from various public authorities. The TUC has championed the “one in a million” campaign, which aims to ensure that as far as possible, every £1 million of public spend results in at least one apprenticeship opportunity provided to a young person. A Labour Government would deliver on such principles. We would, for example, require the HS2 project to create 33,000 apprenticeships for young people at no extra cost to the taxpayer. Likewise, Labour’s new immigration Bill would compel multinationals to create an apprenticeship place each time a skilled worker was hired from outside the EU. We should leave no stone unturned in fighting for apprenticeships.

We should ensure, too, that we fight for quality apprenticeships. They should be at or above NVQ level 3, so that every business that takes on someone who has had an apprenticeship will know that they have taken on someone who has had a really significant quality of training. We think there is a lot more to be done to support apprenticeships, and our amendment 1 would take significant steps forward in supporting those apprenticeships and the type of economy that we are looking to create.

On both apprenticeships and late payments, we think that the Government are taking small steps in the right direction, but they could have been far more ambitious and delivered far more for small businesses, apprenticeships and a skilled economy. We hope that the Government will support our amendments, which would enable us to do precisely that. If they do not, they can be sure that a future Labour Government will pursue these themes and make sure that we have the kind of economy in which we can have confidence and faith in the future.

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We have had a good-natured and largely well-informed debate on these new clauses and amendments.

I shall deal first with late payments. We have heard passionate speeches from Members on both sides of the House on the importance of tackling late payment. I will start by addressing a comment made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who performed admirably on the Public Bill Committee and made many important interventions. He argued that the current situation in the country on late payment is not acceptable and is not working, and I think he is right. The question is what to do about it.

We consulted broadly on all the potential options surrounding late payments, including many of the options covered by the amendments, and we listened carefully to the responses to the consultations. There was a range of responses, including from those who would firmly regulate all private contracts and from those who did not want any change at all. It is important for us to take steps that will have a positive impact, and to think about the unintended consequences. If we introduce into English law a requirement for a contract to take a specific form, we will remove a freedom of contract that has served the country extremely well for a long time.

We have today heard passionate arguments about the importance of dealing with late payment, as we did on Second Reading and in Committee. We have heard them from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and from Opposition Members. I bow to none in my passion for sorting out the problem of late payment, because the family business in which I grew up nearly went under thanks to it, but let me point to the big picture. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) argued that there was a moral case, and I agree with that. He also observed that the problem arose when there was a cascade of companies paying late—when, because some paid late, others had to do so, and then others had to as well. I have been at the receiving end of that, as I am sure he has. He is nodding now. The best way to tackle the problem of companies going bust and others paying late is first to establish a stable economy, and then to establish a culture of payment that is stronger and better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

There are 1,700 businesses on the register from across the country as a whole. Of course, this is targeted at the biggest companies because they are typically the ones at the top of the supply chains, but I would be very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to increase the number in Scotland.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Matthew Hancock]

I want to turn to the campaign that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has run over many years, but first I will take an intervention from the shadow Minister.

[Toby Perkins]

Although many people will of course race off to Hansard to catch up on this debate, some, unbelievably, may not. Is it not entirely wrong that a business could have a term of 180 days, pay “on time”—that is, within those 180 days—and be seen as a signatory to the prompt payment code? All we are proposing in new clause 3 is that if they do not pay within 60 days, they should not be considered part of the prompt payment code.

[Matthew Hancock]

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says, and that is why we are strengthening the code and will in future kick out companies that say that they have signed up to the code but then have unreasonably long payment terms, so I think we are basically in the same place on that point.

I wanted to address a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth about modern slavery. She has run an admirable campaign on prompt payment over many years, and we have had exchanges across the Chamber before. She has brought a huge amount of pressure to bear on this issue, and has pushed this agenda. I strongly agree with the direction of the agenda, and I agree with her on modern slavery, too. We are determined to work with businesses to ensure that supply chains are not infiltrated by the abhorrent crime of modern slavery. There is a new disclosure requirement in the Modern Slavery Bill, requiring all large businesses to disclose what they have done to ensure that their supply chains are slavery-free. That is an important step forward and takes into account the point she made.

New clause 1 would introduce a power allowing a new reporting requirement on the retention of money, require a review, and provide a further power to act on that review, but we already have a new obligation to report on these practices in this Bill. The transparency measures are at the core of the prompt payment changes proposed in the Bill.

We will seek the views of business bodies during the consultation. We are also aware that retentions are particularly prevalent in the construction industry, as the hon. Member from Scotland said—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), as I should have said. We are working with industry to move to a position where retentions are no longer necessary, and I would be happy to work with Opposition Members to push that further.

New clause 3 deals with prompt payment. It would introduce a maximum payment term of 60 days, and also place an obligation on the Secretary of State to write annually to all non-signatory FTSE 350 companies asking them to sign up to the code. I am delighted to say that I commit wholeheartedly to writing to all non-signatory FTSE 350 companies asking them to join the strengthened prompt payment code, and we should continue the cross-party push aimed at getting more large companies to sign up. The new reporting requirement will provide sufficient transparency, which will lead to competitive pressure on companies to improve their payment practices.

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely, and I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend on that. There are large private companies that are not in the FTSE. Larger companies, however they are formulated, need to be considered.

New clause 4 also deals with prompt payment. It proposes a review of how the new reporting requirement can be used to ensure the automatic payment of compensation by large companies. This is the nub of the proposal, which we discussed in Committee, that interest be automatically allowed to accrue after 60 days. We consulted on something similar during the consultation, and some bodies were in favour and others were against. Some of the bodies representing small businesses, such as the Institute of Directors, were against the proposal because of the way in which it would change contract law. I therefore do not think that the new clause is necessary, but, like Opposition Members, I want to work to strengthen payment practices. We will resist this proposal today, because we do not think the case for it has been made and we do not believe that the unintended consequences have been thought through. However, we will report back publicly on the findings of further work before the end of this Parliament.

[Toby Perkins]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said about new clause 3 and the prompt payment code. Given those assurances, we will not press new clauses 3 and 4 to a vote. I hope that we can continue to work together constructively on late payments, because that is a key issue for small businesses.

[Matthew Hancock]

That is terrific. After our voting performance today, I am delighted to hear that.

Amendment 6 proposes that companies disclose details of the circumstances in which, and processes by which, payment terms are amended. I have already said that the Government believe that it is poor practice to subject suppliers to unilateral and ad hoc changes to payment terms. We talked about that in Committee. I agree that greater transparency could increase accountability for this practice, and we are launching a consultation on how that transparency could be achieved. I hope that that deals with the substance of amendment 6.

Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that contracting authorities know about the historical payment performance of potential suppliers before they enter into public contracts with them. It also seeks to ensure that the companies entering into those contracts pay their own suppliers promptly. The new procurement regulations that will be made early next year will place a duty on contracting authorities to pass 30-day payment terms all the way down the public sector supply chain, from the contracting authority to the tier 1 supplier. This has been discussed here today and in Committee. I hope that Members will therefore agree that this amendment is not required in addition to the regulations.

On amendment 1, having prompt payment in procurement is dealt with in the new procurement regulations. The requirement for training in procurement is something I agree with where it is cost-effective. We have delivered that in Crossrail and I very much hope that HS2, which has been mentioned, will also deliver it. That is exactly the sort of training, alongside contracting, that is common in the private sector, but of course we have to drive value for money in the public sector, too. The Government agree that transparency and reporting in public sector procurement is vital, and Departments are already required to report on procurement expenditure with smaller businesses. As hon. Members know, that expenditure has been rising rapidly as a proportion and we are on target to hit the goals we set.

Amendment 2, also on procurement, is designed to ensure that the Minister making regulations under clause 37 is able to specify the reasons why firms may be excluded from entering into contracts. Under the existing procurement regulations a contracting authority can already take account of certain types of past behaviour by an economic operator, such as grave professional misconduct, when deciding whether it is eligible to take part in a procurement process. So that is already allowed for.

Amendment 3 states that any regulations made under clause 37 are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and I reassure hon. Members that contracting authorities, as public authorities, are already required to respond to FOI requests. Amendment 4 is designed to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny by removing the reference to the negative resolution procedure. I agreed to consider, following the debate in Committee, whether it would be appropriate to change the level of parliamentary scrutiny for these regulations. The Government think that the negative resolution procedure provides the right level, but I did go away and consider the matter. We think that an affirmative process would slow down potential changes when the Government want to remain nimble in responding to the needs of small businesses.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for tabling amendment 91 on UK Export Finance. In our response to the consultation on these issues, the Government rejected such a proposal and set out the rationale: a prohibited list, by its very nature, would not allow the Secretary of State to take an open-minded approach in coming to a decision on whether to support an export falling within an included class. The measures already enhance the support that UK Export Finance can offer, and creating an ability to prohibit support for certain exports which are otherwise perfectly legal goes directly against that goal.

Amendment 92, again tabled by the hon. Lady, relates to the business impact target. I am delighted to debate that with her, because I believe the need for the target proposals set out in the Bill is clear. Too many businesses, particularly smaller ones, find that complying with Government regulation is the single biggest challenge to running their business. We had strong support in Committee for the target. It is only by having a competitive business environment that we can have prosperity, growth and indeed the environmental protections that she is so passionate about. I strongly support, and urge her to support, the deregulation target.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Some of my colleagues are at the memorial service for Paul Goggins and so are unable to be here, even though they contributed to the debate. I ask for the forbearance of the House for that.

We have had a fascinating and excellent debate that has demonstrated the passion that the House has for small businesses. In the four years since my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) first set out his determination to make his one nation Labour party the party of small business, there has been a welcome change across the political spectrum in the recognition of the importance of small businesses.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and the hon. Members for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), I am a former small business owner. We were described as heroes by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I therefore know that although the Government’s words have been warm and welcoming, they have not always materialised into action for small businesses. Small business Saturday, which is a significant cross-party initiative, originated with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna).

[Matthew Hancock]

It was Barack Obama!

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister is not the first to confuse the two.

We welcome the fact that this is the first of the Government’s Bills to have small business in its title, and it contains a number of measures that we will support. Indeed, on pub companies, late payments, zero-hours contracts and takeovers, the Bill demonstrates the extent to which the Labour party has set the political agenda. However, in the final analysis, the Bill is a metaphor for the entire Government. They know that there are important things to do, they hear what some of the key issues are, but they cannot agree on what to do, so they deliver a Bill that fails fully to grasp the nature of the challenge that faces Britain if we are genuinely to rebalance the country’s economy, support more small business growth, and create an economy that works for the many and not just the few. Members on both sides of the House are pleased that there is a small business Bill, but the sense of a missed opportunity was widely articulated by them.

On access to finance, we are four years into this Government, but net lending is still falling year on year. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) said that banks have sucked up Government money and reduced lending to small firms. That view was also articulated by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). Labour’s plans for local lending, a beefed-up British investment bank and support for alternative sources of finances have the potential to be truly transformative for Britain’s small businesses, which have been struggling for access to finance for far too long.

On pub companies, Labour Members have argued on Opposition days and in Back-Bench debates since 2011 that the Government were wrong not to introduce an independent adjudicator, and not to put the pub code on a statutory footing. We welcome the fact that they are doing so today. On three occasions, they voted against the measures they now propose. However, the parallel rent assessment process lacks credibility, as was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). The impact on small family brewers—no one suggests that they are the cause of the problems facing the industry—was mentioned by the hon. Members for Bedford, for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and for North Swindon. The measure means that those family brewers face costly and incoherent plans that could be damaging for them.

Unless strengthened, the Bill will not deliver the change we need for Britain’s pubs. It was hard to find an hon. Member who was fully in favour of the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who has done fantastic work on the issue through the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, said that the pub company model had failed. He gave the Committee’s support for a mandatory rent-only option. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is bewildered as to why the Government did not follow the recommendation of the Committee or of Her Majesty’s Opposition. To demonstrate the extent to which the Bill falls short of expectation, it was welcomed by the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). If there is a clearer definition of why the Bill fails to stand up to the test we should set for it, I do not know what it is.

The Government are taking sensible steps on strengthening late payments provisions down the line with respect to public procurement, but they are leaving the onus on the public sector and small businesses to avail themselves of data to discover whether or not they are likely to be ripped off if they sell to a company. Action on public sector late payment is fine, but it does not tackle the lion’s share of the problem. Seventy-five per cent. of businesses that cite late payment as a problem are talking about corporate late payment. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who has a fantastic pedigree on the issue, spoke powerfully on the importance of tackling private sector late payment as well as public sector late payment. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale described the measure as a step forward and not a step change, which was a neat way of putting it. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said that we need action on corporate late payers. My hon. Friends will be pleased to know that Labour will propose serious steps during the passage of the Bill that will shift the burden of responsibility off small firms that wait and on to the large firms that pay late. We will truly stand up for small businesses. Those small firms want an end to being used as a cash cow by their large counterparts.

On zero-hours contracts, the Government have done the least they possibly could. I suspect the Secretary of State recognises that the steps in the Bill offer little to employees who face a choice between the insecurity of zero-hours contracts or going back on the dole. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham laid out, Labour will take serious steps to recognise that the benefits of a flexible work force should not come at the expense of basic security for long-term employees.

We recognise that there will always be a need for temporary work. There will always be seasonal variations. Any sensible regime will allow for that, but the Government’s policy is all about political presentation—they want to be seen to be doing something about an issue they recognise is toxic on the doorsteps—and is not serious action to end the misery of life on zero-hours contracts for workers in Cameron’s Britain. Those whose working day is spent picking vegetables, working in a call centre, caring for the elderly or plucking a chicken deserve the right to be represented by this House. The House will speak up for them on zero-hours contracts.

The measures on public sector exit payments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, are a bit rich coming from the Government who, in the biggest ever NHS reorganisation, sacked hundreds of senior managers, paid them off, and then discovered that they still needed them to do their jobs. I think the sense of frustration was felt on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Bedford, who I have to say was in mid-season form and speaking very well—it is clear why he was not promoted; he is far too sensible—asked why there are no steps towards legislation on the living wage. That is a valid point, which was not properly answered.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) exposed the fact that Government proposals on minimum wage fines will not deliver for workers, as the money will simply go back to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said that the Secretary of State did not understand what life was like for people in her constituency struggling to get by on low incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said that the Government were closed to new ideas.

There were contributions from the hon. Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) criticised Labour’s record on education. It was almost as though she did not represent a party that sacked their Education Secretary yesterday. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) welcomed the takeover plan, which, I have to say, on first hearing sounded very much like what my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North proposed just a few months ago.

What is clear is that small businesses are very important, and they are respected and admired by Members across the House. However, this is a Bill that misses an opportunity to take some of the steps that really could make a very significant difference. I welcome some measures, but we feel that the Bill demonstrates a series of compromises from a Government who have run out of ideas. They have lost a sense of central purpose and are trapped in their own contradictions. They are frightened to ask the electorate for their verdict and so they stagger on unloved even by those who are in it. It is time for a Government with a fresh agenda. A Labour small business Bill would have delivered real opportunity. This is a Bill that speaks of a Government who are approaching the end. We will give Members the opportunity in Committee to turn it into a Bill that really means something: a Bill that delivers for workers on zero-hours contracts, a Bill that protects publicans, pubs and family brewers, a Bill that empowers small businesses waiting for money they are owed, that boosts our world-class insolvency regime and protects Britain’s manufacturing pedigree. That is what the Bill should be about and that is what the Bill still can be about. Let us strengthen it so that it really delivers, or admit that this Government never will deliver and let us have a general election.

Small Businesses

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly do. I was in the process of paying tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done on that issue. She is absolutely right.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whom I usually regard as a sound voice on the issue of small business, said that if someone is paid late they should refuse to supply the company, but that does not recognise the difference in the relationship between a powerful customer and a struggling supplier. Every year, 2,000 businesses go under simply because they are not paid money that is owed to them, so I think he was wrong about that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need the Government to be at the forefront of not just encouraging people to pay on time, but ensuring that that culture change passes right down the public sector procurement chain to second and third-tier suppliers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) made a lengthy advertisement—I sense it was somewhat to his embarrassment—for Danczuk’s deli. Numerous Members wanted to know about the excellent wares he will be providing. He has been in business before and it is great that he and his wife are opening a delicatessen in the centre of Rochdale and that he is putting his money where his mouth is.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) spoke, among many others, about the tremendous difficulties caused by the increase in business rates, which I shall return to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) promoted the value of local innovative firms and also focused on access to finance. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is not in his place. [Interruption.] I see that he has moved—I do not know how I managed to miss that moustache. He encapsulated the bravery and pioneering spirit required to set up a business and he was right to say that it doesn’t half set the pulses racing. At such moments, people realise what colour adrenaline is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) was entirely right to say that small businesses are undergoing a cost of living crisis, which I will reflect on in a moment.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said that Labour always liked to increase corporation tax. If he was still here, he would be surprised to discover that corporation tax was actually 3% less after 13 years of Labour Government. Perhaps he should talk to the former Prime Minister about that.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether it is still Labour’s policy to increase corporation tax?

Start-up Loans

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

You are very wise, once again, Mr Speaker, to notice that.

Will the Minister make a statement on the real access to finance crisis that he has done so little about? Will he recognise the need for radical change to the banks through the Labour party’s proposed network of local banks and support for challenger banks, which will lead to the desperately needed improvement in the position of small firms seeking access to finance?

[Matthew Hancock]

Mr James Caan, who runs the start-up loans scheme on our behalf and to whom I pay tribute, is absolutely right to say how important mentoring is—and I think we have just seen why. What a pity that the Labour party cannot be enthusiastic about and supportive of a scheme that has done so much: 37% of start-up loans go to BME entrepreneurs and more than a third to the unemployed. We are aiming for 30,000 and the pace of delivery is accelerating.

I will turn to the specific questions asked. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about business growth in hubs, which is why the development of Tech City UK and of start-up hubs around the country—in Manchester, Cambridge, Edinburgh and almost every city—is welcome and I hope it will get cross-party support.

The hon. Gentleman said that we need to ensure that this scheme is part of a package, but I am not sure whether he was listening to the statement. The whole point is that the scheme is precisely part of a plan to start improving access and helping people right at the start of their business careers, and to then expand the enterprise investment scheme, enhance the guarantees available, establish the business bank and, most importantly, turn around the banks. I think that a little more support from the Labour party for turning around the mess it created would be more appropriate.

Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) in saying this has been an excellent debate and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and the other supporters of the motion. Not only has the debate been informed and valuable—there is now no need for me to read out many of the statistics I have to hand to set the context as they have already been given—but it is timely given Tuesday’s OECD report. It was a shocking report and it will reverberate down through the education debate in Britain for many years. I hope it will persuade many who are sceptical or resistant to the reforms being put in place to come onside and support more rigour, and support stronger maths and English within schools.

The OECD demonstrated that over 8 million people in our country lack functional numeracy and over 5 million lack functional literacy. While Britain is strong at the top of the skills range, on these measures we have gone from being about the third best in the world to about the third worst in two generations between 55-year-olds and 16-year-olds.

[Toby Perkins]

That statistic was given earlier today by the Leader of the House. The OECD report said we were third bottom of 24 countries, not third-bottom in the world. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead people. He is out there fighting for British jobs, and he would not want to tell people that the situation is worse than it is.

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. We are third from the bottom in the developed world, as surveyed by the OECD. We are 22nd out of 24 in numeracy and 21st out of 24 in literacy and however we want to cut those figures, they are bad.

I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard in this area, especially the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and its chief executive, David Hughes, whose lifelong work has been spent trying to drive up adult literacy and numeracy. So much of the solution is about high expectations and standards and, as a country, we have tried over the last decade and more to find one merely by throwing money at the problem. It is clear that while money is part of the answer, it is only part of the answer, and a lot of it is to do with making sure we get the right teaching to the right expectations with the right level of rigour.

This problem must be solved first in our primary and secondary schools. We can then try to solve it, for those who do not succeed at school, in colleges and further education, and then, of course, for those for whom that still does not work, throughout life. This problem must be tackled at all levels, therefore.

Let me set out some of the actions the Government have taken. The focus on numeracy and literacy in primary schools is crucial, but, as well as time spent on these issues, we have to make sure we have high expectations of children at a young age. We need to make sure that grammar is taught properly and that mental arithmetic matters—that we do not rely only on calculators, and instead the understanding of basic maths is inculcated deep in pupils. Then we must reform GCSEs and have a more stretching curriculum for teenagers, and then, for those who do not get the crucial C or above in GCSE, make sure they continue to learn English and maths. The introduction of the tech level and the tech bac will drive that among those who do not go down the A-level route. As announced this week, we are introducing a core maths paper that is somewhere between a GCSE and an A-level so that for the 40% who get a C at GCSE but do not continue to study maths there is a qualification that is not as big as a full A-level but allows them to continue studying maths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

I was coming on to deal with the role of community facilities, where I understand my hon. Friend is driving forward the argument. Academies and free schools are one way to help, because giving more autonomy to head teachers allows them to use their buildings as they wish. On libraries, managing community facilities more imaginatively is important, and a lot of that is down to the individual managers of individual institutions. I strongly support what he said about that.

Of course, good teaching of English and maths requires good English and maths teachers, so we are today announcing new Department for Education support for the national centre for excellence in the teaching of maths to develop a maths enhancement programme to upskill existing teachers of maths in further education. The programme will be delivered by professional development leads associated with the centres for excellence in teaching and training. We need more maths teachers, and we are on track this year to have trained more than 600 FE teachers. So we are constantly working to drive up the number of English and maths teachers, as well as the English and maths taught.

Above all, this comes down to school reform, because without excellent schools we will not solve this generational problem. I hope that the OECD report will have helped to build a stronger consensus behind our school reforms, which remain opposed—inexplicably—by some people who otherwise describe themselves as “progressive”. As the shadow Minister said, the OECD showed the problem of the link between deprivation and education being greater in England and Northern Ireland than elsewhere, but the problem is that poor education entrenches deprivation. Education needs to be the foundation of social mobility, and in the UK that is not happening nearly enough now. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the collapse that the OECD study showed in the results among 16 to 24-year-olds, where this country has gone from the top to very near the bottom. We are driving forward on making sure that we reform our schools system, bring in free schools, give head teachers powers under academisation and improve the standards of teachers. However, we have opposition, and I do not understand why people who otherwise call themselves “progressive” say that they are opposed to these things. I wonder whether we are going to get a change of heart from the Opposition Front-Bench team on so-called “unqualified teachers”, not least because the new shadow Education Secretary once was an unqualified teacher.

[Toby Perkins]

The report makes it absolutely clear that England and Northern Ireland need to address social inequalities, particularly among young adults—that was a key part of its recommendations, which is why I focused strongly on it. Of course I understand that educational inequalities can lead to social inequalities, but this report is saying that social inequalities will lead to educational inequalities.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome the fact that inequality in Great Britain is at its lowest level since 1986 as a result of the efforts of this coalition Government.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made a passionate speech. I hope that this debate will not become party political because there is no need for it to be; if we all listen to what the OECD said and drive rigour and standards through schools, it does not have to be party political. He also mentioned mentors. We are reforming careers advice to make it about inspiration and mentoring, and to help brokerage between businesses and schools. If anyone had him as a mentor, I have no doubt that they would absolutely value that. He made many extremely important points, crucially recognising that this has not gone well for a long time and needs to be turned around. He said that we have failed to deliver the most basic of education over a number of years, and that is exactly what we are trying to turn around.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Sales skills are crucial to British businesses, but although nearly 10% of people are employed in sales, fewer than 1% of apprenticeships are in sales. Having escaped the opportunity to become Alan Sugar’s apprentice, Kate Walsh is now heading the Labour party’s policy review body, which is looking into how we can ensure that more young people get into sales and recognise the value of such work. Will the Minister congratulate Kate Walsh on having engaged in the political process, and acknowledge the importance of sales in our schools and colleges?

[Matthew Hancock]

I would commend any work intended to enhance the quality of apprenticeships, which are no longer restricted to one part of the economy but now extend to the whole economy. They are increasing in quantity, and we need to ensure that they increase in quality as well. I should welcome the contributions of anyone who can bring about an increase in the number of rigorous and employer-focused apprenticeships.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Matt Hancock and Toby Perkins

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend effectively anticipates my speech, for which I thank him. He makes a very wise contribution. The reality between 1999 and 2008 was not that the Conservatives were calling on the Labour Government to reduce spending; quite the opposite, they were complaining about all sorts of things that we were not spending enough money on—from police to flood defences and all sorts of other things. Now they sit there and say that we should have known all along what was going to happen. No one can take what they say seriously.

[Matthew Hancock]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

Talking of no one taking the Conservatives seriously, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Labour Government’s plans for significant cuts in public spending. Can he give us one single example that they have set out?

[Toby Perkins]

Yes, as the shadow Chancellor made clear, we would have maintained spending over the course of this year and put in place a different Budget from that of the Conservatives, along with headline measures about what future spending would be. Of course it was too early for us to have a comprehensive spending review; when the Conservatives were in opposition, did they ever do a comprehensive spending review and tell us every line of the Budget they would have carried out? Of course not. That is the reality of the situation.

My hon. Friends have pointed out that under the former Prime Minister the Labour Government led the rest of the world to the solution when the global economic crisis was at its worst. Labour made the choice to protect jobs, as I said. Just as Labour made a choice—an ethical and a political choice as well as an economic one—so the Chancellor has made his choice with the Budget. He did not choose fairness; he chose to gamble. His gamble is based on an ideology that says that the growth of the public sector somehow constricts the private sector, but it is utterly fallacious to suggest that the success of the one has to be to the detriment of the other and that the role of Government is to keep taxes low for businesses and keep out of the way. That is the wrong choice. That is taking a gamble with the recovery that Labour was delivering in a stable and managed way. It threatens our recovery at a time when the economy is still fragile.

The choice to increase VAT is, of course, regressive. When even the TaxPayers Alliance denigrates the policy as hitting the poor, we really have to listen. This will take approximately twice the amount from the incomes of the bottom 20% as it does from the top 20%, and it will stunt growth. That is acknowledged on page 97 of the Red Book, so the Chancellor is introducing a policy that he knows will stunt growth. As a business owner myself, I know that this tax will directly remove 2.5% from the bottom line of my firm if it were not passed on to my customers.

I also know that cuts in corporation tax are not as important as having a market in which one can make a profit. While the VAT cut introduced by Labour in 2008-09 stimulated growth, this VAT increase will take about £300 out of the average family’s pocket at a time when families are crying out for more help from Government, not less. That will have a knock-on effect on business. The Government seem to think that reducing the corporation tax burden, already historically low on businesses, will stimulate growth, without recognising that the environment in which businesses trade is the most important part of making a profit.

Taking money out of the pockets of consumers also takes money out of the pockets of businesses. It increases redundancies and business failures, and it stunts our ability to grow our way out of recession. For the hundreds of extra businesses that will now struggle to stay afloat, the thought of a cut in corporation tax will merit little more than a mirthless laugh. At every level, the Budget stunts growth. Cutting the allowances on which manufacturing firms were relying, and replacing them with a corporation tax cut over the next few years, will result in businesses being less likely to invest and more likely to focus on bottom-line profits.

The starkest aspect of the Budget, however, was a complete lack of a sense that the Liberal Democrats have been a moderating influence on the Tory plans. Where were the Lib Dem influences in this Budget? Seriously, does anyone in the House believe that if the Budget had been delivered by a Tory majority Administration, the Liberal Democrats would have marched through the Lobby and supported it? I will take that as a no. Where was the £2 billion capital gains tax increase? It was less than halved. Where was the commitment to restrict tax relief on pensioners to the basic rate? It disappeared. Where was the mansion tax? It does not exist. Where were the green taxes? How can one justify a £2 billion bank levy that will be compensated by corporation tax cuts for the banks that caused so much damage? Where was the Robin Hood tax on bank transactions, which would have brought in more than treble the amount?