Cerberus Capital Management: Purchase of Distressed Assets

Debate between Roger Mullin and George Kerevan

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Roger Mullin]

If the messages that are being passed are going to answer some of my questions, I will not object too severely.

As I was saying, Cerberus is an example of a company that operates to standards that are the very reverse of a duty of care towards small businesses in our country. Surely we can expect the Government to be concerned about the effect on the good people who have suffered at its hands. In my constituency, a perfectly good trading company of many years’ standing was completely destroyed by the actions of Cerberus, in a similar way to another company mentioned earlier. It was willing to repay the loan, but the additional fees that it was stuck with and the way in which Cerberus operated drove it to bankruptcy. I will not name the company, because like other hon. Members I do not want to embarrass anyone who may be listening, but I am genuinely concerned about the health of the family who were treated in that way.

Let me comment on some points made by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) said in an intervention how difficult it has been to get a conversation between Cerberus and those affected by its actions. It seems that it is unwilling to speak except in the remarkable case that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned, when it sought to buy assets in Northern Ireland and was only too happy to make promises such as adopting a long-term strategy—that would be a novel thing for it to do.

[George Kerevan]

On the subject of secrecy and Cerberus, is my hon. Friend aware that Stephen Feinberg, Cerberus’s founder, is the leading candidate to undertake the review of the American secret service under Donald Trump?

[Roger Mullin]

Yes, I am aware of that. One can be fairly confident that that review of the secret service will itself be done in the greatest of secrecy.

I was also taken by some of Cerberus’s other promises that the hon. Member for East Antrim mentioned, such as making a presumption in favour of the incumbent and not squeezing value out of assets. It would appear that Cerberus has decided to act in a way that is precisely the reverse of its public promises.

I must pay yet more tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian for the clear way in which he set out one or two facts that I hope the Minister will respond to, particularly the manufacturing of distress by the operation of such institutions and the movement from regulated to unregulated markets.

Cerberus proudly proclaims that it can make profits of 17% to 20% out of the tax avoidance schemes that it engages in, extracting value by moving between the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. It is therefore not only small and medium-sized enterprises that are victims of the way in which Cerberus is operating, but the Treasury as well. I particularly look forward to the answer that the Minister must surely give to the question that my hon. Friend asked in his opening remarks: what has the loss been to the taxpayer in the UK from the actions of Cerberus? Everyone deserves to receive an answer to that this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Roger Mullin and George Kerevan

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

4. What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on reintroduction of the post-study work visa.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

18. What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on reintroduction of the post-study work visa.

The Economy and Work

Debate between Roger Mullin and George Kerevan

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

Wait for it. This afternoon, the Chancellor promised us a better markets Bill to improve competition. We on the SNP Benches are in favour of that and will give it what help we can, depending on what is in the Bill. It is a matter of record that, in the UK, we have the most monopolised banking system in the western world. Four big banks dominate, with 80% of the market share. If we want genuine competition and better markets in finance, we need to have six, eight or 10 banks of a similar size. Until we have that, there will be no better markets or better competition.

Here is a tale: the two main regulatory bodies set up by this Government and this Chancellor to ensure more competition and better markets in finance—the Competition and Markets Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority—have failed to deliver. Why is that? There is a suspicion among SNP Members, and I suspect among Government Members, that those regulators are perhaps looking over their shoulder at the Chancellor and asking themselves, “Does the Chancellor really want us to close down, intervene in or break up those banks? Maybe we are being told to say one thing and to do another.” That is why, when we look at the small print of the Bill, we will want to see whether this is just shadow boxing and a subterfuge that allows the Chancellor to get up and say, “I’m in favour of competition, but actually—shush, shush—don’t do anything about it”, or whether it will really have teeth to take on the big banks.

I want very quickly to look at some of the things that are going on. The FCA has brokered a deal with the big banks on arbitration for small businesses who have suffered mis-selling and been bankrupted. Unfortunately, the FCA has turned a blind eye to the fact that the big banks are now signing up solicitors across the UK, including in Scotland, so that those solicitors, who are on the banks’ books and waiting for work, will not take up the cases of small businesses who feel that the arbitration process has gone against them and want to take the banks to court.

[Roger Mullin]

Corrupt.

[George Kerevan]

I hear from a sedentary position the word “corrupt”. I will not use that word, but I will certainly be looking to the Chancellor and this Government to make sure, through this Bill, that such practices by the big banks are done away with.

Finally, in my constituency of East Lothian, RBS has just announced the closure of its only branch in the town of Prestonpans. That is a surprise because the population of East Lothian is growing, and we are about to have 10,000 more houses in the general area of Prestonpans. Banks do that kind of thing: they do not care about their customers. This Bill has to reverse that, and that is the test we will apply to it.

Hinkley Point C Reactor

Debate between Roger Mullin and George Kerevan

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Originally, the two Hinkley C reactors were designed to be off-the-shelf copies of the reactor being built by EDF in Normandy. That has not happened. There have been significant changes. In fact, the way the EPR reactor has to be built—on site, piece by piece; it will be unique—leaves massive margins of error for cost overrun. Who is underwriting any cost overruns? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a partial capital guarantee that if there is any problem in the construction phase, the British taxpayer will start to pick up the bill.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that of EDF’s two reactors underway in Europe, there have been huge cost overruns in Finland where the reactor is nine years late, while the one in Normandy is four years late?

[George Kerevan]

Yes, that is entirely true. That is the point. If we look at who is actually responsible for having got us into this financial hole, do I detect yet again that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We are here not out of an energy policy issue, but because the Chancellor wanted to keep the construction costs of £25 billion and rising off the national book. He wanted to keep it off the debt. For the first time ever in the UK, we are trying to build a new reactor with a new reactor design by putting all the risk on to the private sector. This project is too large and the technology is too unproven for that to work. The Chancellor is digging himself a big hole to protect his rickety plan to keep down the deficit and pay down the national debt, but it will not work. At some point in the next 10 years, we will be back here discussing a bail-out.

That is what I am trying to get across. A significant number of EDF board members know that the project cannot be financed through private capital. Even if EDF could raise the £12 billion or £18 billion—its share for building the Hinkley C reactor—it would need four, five or six times that to complete its programme of reactor life extensions in France. The sum total is colossal for a company already dripping with debt. Unless the French taxpayer is prepared to underwrite all of that, which is highly unlikely, something will have to give, and let me assure the House that it will be not EDF’s reactors in France but this project. It will disappear into the wide blue yonder.

The problem is that by 2025, when the two reactors are not on-stream, we will have closed down the 10 coal- fired stations that the Government announced would be closed last November, just before the Paris climate change conference, and suddenly we will have a huge gap in the 2020s—even worse than now—in our capacity to generate electricity. That will all be because we have mortgaged ourselves to an outdated approach to energy, which is to build gargantuan nuclear reactors that cost the earth—literally and financially—and which cannot be underwritten by the private sector because of the risk. The Government have manifestly been trying to pretend otherwise, and that is ultimately why they are refusing to come back regularly to the House to explain what is going on. They are hoping for the best.

I want the Minister to tell us what discussions have been going on with the board, when we might see the decision to go ahead with construction and what will happen if we do not get a timely agreement to go ahead. What happens if the board delays and delays until 2019? Is there a plan B?