Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Much of what I was going to say has already been said, so I shall be as succinct as any lawyer can be in these circumstances. I too pay tribute to the effectiveness of the loan scheme. It has certainly saved many firms and many jobs in my constituency of Bromley and Chislehurst. One forgets that London suburbs, although in the prosperous south-east, have many small firms among their number—many family firms and many SMEs—and they have struggled just as much as any other part of the country during this time, particularly as there has always been a problem for many of them with access to capital. I hope we can learn long-term lessons from this.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing the debate, because it is on an important issue. There are some things I hope we can embed in the system, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made a number of important points in relation to that. His father, as a distinguished former Member of this House and distinguished lawyer, would, dare I say it, be very proud of him.

It is fair to say that the key thing going forward is perhaps to ensure that the business loan scheme works effectively with the other measures we are putting in place, and that is where the changes that have just been referred to—the greater flexibility around repayments and moving away from the straight line capital—will be important.

I hope, too, that we can see how that scheme links with some of the other assistance that is being given. For example, an issue that has been raised with me by firms in my constituency is that they have been able to defer tax payments in relation to corporation tax, national insurance contributions and others, but there is still some lack of certainty as to whether there will be any interest charged or any penalty charges in some types of tax deferment. There have been mixed messages as far as that is concerned, and it would be bizarre if we were supporting businesses through the business loan and then some of that was going back to pay the same public purse, in effect, through penalties and interest charges on things we have given them the opportunity to take up. That might in some marginal cases make a difference to firms. Can we therefore ensure that is fully aligned so we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul, in a sense?

The other area, which I think we have now resolved, but must be careful about going forward—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to this—is that some of the banks were at one time charging commercial rates of interest based on their own underwriting criteria, which is wholly unacceptable, given that there is 80% underwriting by the Government in these matters. I hope that the Treasury, the Bank and the Department will be absolutely rigorous in policing this and saying that it is not acceptable behaviour.

The majority of the British banking sector is responsible, but there have been a number of instances where it has not been, and it cannot be right to charge those rates of interest. Initially, for example, we had instances of banks declining to give a business loan, but then offering a commercial loan at about 5%. When I raised it with the banks, they said it was a misunderstanding and backed off, but we should not be getting into that situation to start with. Ensuring that there is rigorous policing and the full co-operation of the banking sector in spirit, as well as in the letter of the law, will be very important.

There is a final matter that we could look at, and this is a rather sad story of a business that had been going for some 21 years in my constituency and which was not able to survive. It was in the travel sector and it perhaps had particular problems, but the issue that put it under was the requirement that its paid-up share capital, less the accumulated losses, should be 50%. In this case, although the business was clearly viable and had a good book of orders, its accumulated share capital, less the losses, was 43.3%. It was a family firm, and to make that difference the directors would have had to, and were prepared to try to, raise the better part of £58,000 to get themselves to 50%, but that cannot be done quickly. They would have had to raise equity—in their homes was the most likely route in this example; other people might have had to issue shares—and they ran out of time by the deadline. I hope that we could have some flexibility in that regard. There might be some means of bridging that, where a business can demonstrate and rigorously prove that it is still viable so that it does not fail for want of being able to access a scheme that otherwise it would have been entitled to. There may have been perfectly good reasons why the share capital was under 50% at the time.

Those were the points that I wanted to make in addition to those that have already been made. All in all, it is great credit to the Government that we have done this. It has made a real difference to people, businesses and livelihoods and to the communities that those businesses serve. We should not forget that either. It is just about saying gently: can we keep an eye on some of those things and continue to refine, tweak and improve the system as we go forward?