Inter Faith Network for the UK

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and I join her in paying tribute to Hounslow Friends of Faith. She has shared a really powerful example of where faith communities can work together to deliver truly beneficial projects and initiatives that go deep into communities, perhaps in ways that other statutory agencies cannot.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to follow the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). In the letter I wrote to the Secretary of State on the funding issue in May last year, I made the point that for almost four decades the Inter Faith Network for the UK has been dedicated to increasing understanding and co-operation between peoples of different faiths.

Does my hon. Friend agree with Charanjit Singh, chair of Hounslow Friends of Faith—making such a contribution at times of tension when dialogue is most needed, as has been outlined—that we need the Inter Faith Network to be supported, so that the national body can make sure that local organisations can do their vital grassroots work?

[Holly Lynch]

I am once again grateful to my hon. Friend. She has made a really powerful case for the support that the national network provides to those local community groups, which then facilitate and host the dialogue that is not always easy, but is absolutely vital. We are all so grateful for the role and the benefit it then has within our communities, and how it brings people together at times when we most need that really important work to be undertaken. She is absolutely right.

The IFN’s member bodies include national faith community representative bodies from the Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faiths, such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Hindu Council UK, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Methodist Council, to name just a handful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

Let me assure the hon. Lady that I hear precisely what she has said. I will communicate that through to ministerial colleagues and to officials in the Department who are dealing with this matter. She makes the point powerfully and I hear what she says. Any organisation that secures funding from the public sector, be it in central or local government, always values certainty and security. I am seized of that and of the time pressures to which she alludes.

[Seema Malhotra]

Could the Minister confirm whether the Department has also been in touch with the IFN to say that there is going to be a forthcoming announcement?

[Simon Hoare]

The letter of 7 July set out to Dr Crabtree the funding criteria. That letter has not been either rescinded or updated, so it stands as the de facto communication, if you will, between the Department and the network. Officials and Ministers will be working on that, as I say, and the Department hopes to be able to make an announcement in pretty short order.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

That is absolutely right. In fact, the Union of Jewish Students, which has expressed real concerns about the Bill—the very students who have often been the targets of the appalling abuse and attacks that the hon. Gentleman has outlined—is clear that it wants to see this problem tackled. I hope that is a basis on which we can proceed across the House in a debate that, as I have said, needs far more light and far less heat. I remain confident that, with good faith and good will on everyone’s part, we can find a way to tackle what is a very real problem for the Jewish community in this country.

I will take a moment to explain why the Bill does not do what the Government intend it to do. Clause 1 attempts to ban public bodies from taking decisions influenced by

“political or moral disapproval of foreign state conduct.”

We have commissioned legal advice that suggests there are two readings of the clause. I would just say to some Conservative Members that a King’s counsel—a distinguished King’s counsel who happens to disagree about the legal impact of this legislation—deserves a hearing and deserves respect. If in a democracy those who disagree with us are accused of acting dishonestly or in bad faith, we are in a very dark place indeed. That legal advice suggests that on first reading the clause applies only when it relates to specific territories. That would create the absurd situation where public bodies could refuse goods from China because of general disregard for human rights, but could not refuse cotton goods from Xinjiang because of concerns about genocide against the Uyghur population.

The second reading of the clause, which I imagine is what the Government intend, is that public bodies are banned from having any regard at all to human rights violations of foreign Governments unless they are expressly permitted by this Government. There are a few exceptions in the schedule referred to in clause 3—labour rights, bribery and the environment—but not genocide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, or systematic torture or grave breaches of the Geneva convention. After the horrors of the second world war, it was British diplomats who held the pen, crafting the international legal system that recognised that some crimes are so grave that they should never be acceptable. What has changed that gives the Government grounds to create two tiers through this Bill—to deem slavery unacceptable, but remain silent on the issue of genocide? Have we given up believing that these things matter?

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she share my concerns that the Bill will weaken our voice on the international stage in tackling human rights abuses? It will enable many regimes with appalling human rights records, or companies that have track records of labour law violations or environmental recklessness, to continue without consequence, including where those abuses are incompatible with international law.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern, which has also been raised with me. I defer to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who I know will make a contribution in due course.

What is not clear to me and other Labour Members is why the Government have sought to draw this Bill’s powers so broadly. It is not just breathtaking in its reach; it is deeply contradictory, because the Bill itself accepts that there will be times when public bodies will take a view about the conduct of foreign Governments on specific grounds, such as modern slavery. In fact, the Secretary of State wrote to councils last year urging them to do so in the case of Russia, and has since signalled his intent to add Russia and Belarus to the list of exceptions allowed by clause 3. Only two years ago in this House, I sat on these Benches as we proudly and rightly passed the Magnitsky regulations, which recognised the power of economic sanctions to direct state conduct and raise global standards. However, the Secretary of State is now proposing a Bill that will prevent—for example—the Department for Business and Trade from taking human rights violations into account when deciding whether to grant export credit guarantees. Surely he can see the problem. The Cameron Government became a signatory to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights a decade ago. The Government’s own action plan makes it clear that businesses have a corporate responsibility to uphold human rights and to monitor those they deal with commercially. After years of promising to hand over powers and spending decisions to Mayors, combined authorities and councils, is the Secretary of State seriously saying that they are not capable of exercising the same duty?

There are other areas of deep confusion in this Bill that we believe will open up the prospect of ongoing legal challenge, and I know that has been raised by Conservative Members. Clause 1 bans action that a reasonable observer would conclude is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign Government, but on these deeply contested notions what constitutes a “reasonable observer”?

Clause 4 is even more problematic. It prohibits public bodies from expressing a view not just about how they intend to act, but how they would have done so had the law not been in force. It is difficult to know how public bodies, particularly those that are elected, should respond to this. In recent years, many councils have, for example, been asked by their own residents not to use Chinese companies with links to Xinjiang. My own council is one of them. Under this Bill, faced with thousands of people signing a public petition, a council would not even be able to give any indication of whether or not it agreed with its own residents. Our legal advice suggests that this extraordinary situation is likely to be incompatible with article 10 of the European convention on human rights.

Clause 3(7) creates even more confusion. It singles out Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights as places for which no exemption can ever be made. The long-standing position of the UK Government is to support a two-state solution along pre-1967 lines that protects and respects the security and right to self-determination of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. This clause drives a coach and horses through that, according the occupied territories the same protected status as Israel and in effect conflating the two. It contradicts established Government policy, and I find it hard to believe that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has agreed to this. I note the questions from two Conservative Members, and I am deeply concerned that it appears that the Government and the Secretary of State have not even asked that question. It appears that Conservative Members have seen a circular from Foreign Office officials raising objections to this Bill, yet the Secretary of State has not. I urge him to look closely at that matter before the Bill proceeds.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 General Committees

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. Labour welcomes this extension to schedule 10 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, having worked previously both privately and publicly to extend the time period for the provisions, which were also supported by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I agree with the Minister that those businesses that can pay their debts should do so, but this was an important step to support and protect otherwise viable businesses from, as he alluded to, aggressive creditors seeking to use statutory demands and winding-up petitions to recover debt and trigger insolvency procedures.

Although we are starting slowly to emerge from the pandemic, businesses up and down the country still face significant challenges. The supply chain crisis is now seriously disrupting the flow of goods to and from businesses, with covid being one of the several underlying causes in the UK and abroad. We have called for measures to tackle that urgently, with a new five-point plan that Members may have seen over the weekend, step 1 of which is a dedicated Minister to lead and co-ordinate efforts across Departments to tackle those issues and support business recovery. Staff shortages have forced businesses either to reduce the amount that they are open or, indeed, to close. In July, around £6 billion-worth of debt accrued during the crisis was owed to commercial landlords.

It is right that businesses facing financial difficulties continue to receive support. Although we may have, thankfully—we hope—passed the worst of the pandemic, our economic recovery is still subject to uncertainties and challenges, particularly in the months and years ahead. There are still huge hurdles for businesses, and the recovery is not equal across all sectors. We must not remove our support and let viable businesses fall at the last moment. Many small businesses, particularly in aerospace, aviation, steel, hospitality, travel, tourism, culture and retail—many sectors that may have started in recent weeks to see demand increase—will still be experiencing particular issues and, in many cases, a cash crisis.

That brings me to the key issue with the extension, which obviously we support. It is similar to the issue raised by my predecessor. How do we know that 30 September is the right time to end the support? What assessment has been done in choosing that as the right time? What evidence do the Government have that otherwise strong businesses will not continue to face financial difficulties after September, especially given the ongoing covid-related staff shortages and the supply chain problems that I have highlighted? The Government must not let previous covid support end up being for nothing by pulling away the provisions, sometimes too early, causing businesses to suffer at the last moment. We want to understand what the evidence is for the end of September as the new, extended, date.

A significant amount of the debt that businesses face comes from owed rent. Despite the commercial rent moratorium, landlords could still attempt to recoup rent from businesses by serving statutory demands and, subsequently, winding-up petitions. Schedule 10 of the 2020 Act, as the Minister alluded to, rendered statutory demands served on companies during the relevant period effectively void. Once the provisions are brought to an end, how will the Government support businesses that may face rent-based statutory demands and winding-up petitions?

The rent moratorium may be in place until March 2022, but how does that sit alongside the ending of the protections in schedule 10? It seems that from 1 October a landlord will not be able to evict a commercial tenant but will be able to seek to have the tenant liquidated through a winding-up petition. Do the Government recognise that there is a paradox in that? They are legislating for businesses to be protected from eviction but not from rent-induced liquidation. It would be very helpful to understand how some of those policies fit together, or indeed whether there is a contradiction.

People up and down the country might be enjoying the lifting of restrictions, with the caution that is certainly being encouraged still, but we must not pretend that businesses are no longer struggling or no longer need support. There will be a particularly difficult hit as furlough comes to an end, giving businesses a double whammy of reduced support and protection at the same time. Labour therefore supports the extension of these important provisions, but we seek assurances and detail from the Government on why the extension is to the end of September, and what the Minister assesses the situation for businesses will be from October onwards.

May I also ask what more the Government are doing, as the Minister alluded to, in terms of advice and support from insolvency professionals? What are the Government doing to ensure that businesses can seek and get good early advice on addressing debt repayment, so that insolvencies that can be avoided in the next year, are avoided? We must not pull that support too early and let viable businesses fall at the last hurdle, with the pathway to recovery still uneven for many different businesses and sectors.

Building Safety Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not think the shambles lies with the House authorities. I am afraid the shambles lies with the Secretary of State. It is just not acceptable. I think it is a contempt of this place that we are given a ministerial statement and a new announcement in his speech that are totally relevant to this Bill and the topics we are discussing today.

Members on both sides of the House have spent weeks scrutinising the Bill, scrutinising what it means and preparing what they are going to say in response, and then they are given this piece of paper halfway through the Secretary of State’s speech. Madam Deputy Speaker says that this is market sensitive. Maybe I am naive about these things, but I do not understand what is market sensitive at 3.10 pm or 2.30 pm that is not market sensitive at 3.30 pm. I thought the markets closed at 4.30 pm, but maybe I have that wrong.

I will come on to some of the things in the Secretary of State’s statement shortly, but I will make some progress because, not only has his shambles now made it hard for Members to properly scrutinise the Bill, but it has cut their time. He has probably lost a lot of friends on both sides of the House in the process.

The starting point of this Bill and of our debate today is the awful tragedy at Grenfell tower. Again, we remember the 72 lives lost and stand with the families, friends and community of Grenfell who are campaigning for change. I also put on record my admiration and awe, as homeowners and tenants across the country are dealing every day with the building safety scandal that engulfs our towns and cities. Their tireless campaigning under such very difficult circumstances is beyond impressive.

Of course, people had been ringing the bell about building safety long before Grenfell, including the residents themselves. By 2017, the Government already had two coroners’ reports on previous fires that called for reform, yet they did not act. In the wake of Grenfell, the Government commissioned a review of building regulations, the Hackitt review, and this Bill implements her recommendations. Given that her final report was published more than three years ago, why has it taken so long for this Bill to reach us?

The Hackitt report is damning, finding that the entire system is not fit for purpose. She concludes:

“The ultimate test of this new framework will be the rebuilding of…confidence in the system. The people who matter most in all of this are the residents of these buildings.”

Dame Judith’s conclusion is the test against which the Bill, and now the new ministerial statement, must be set.

It is far too simple and wrong to say that all this is the fault of “shoddy developers”, as the Government have recently asserted. The tragedy at Grenfell, the fires before and the near misses since have happened as a result of many years of deregulation, lack of enforcement and accountability, and a culture where sign-off and inspection can be bought. These issues have been brought to light in the shocking evidence heard by the Grenfell inquiry, which is ongoing.

We support the majority of what is in this Bill, which at last strengthens regulation of high-rise buildings, although it could go further. However, we have serious concerns about what is not in the Bill. It abandons those leaseholders already trapped in the building safety crisis and we will seek every avenue to provide the cast-iron legal guarantees that have long been promised.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation that leaseholders find themselves in compounds their ongoing and awful situation? They find themselves without leverage, with service charges that are often unjustified and with difficulty getting resolution for them. This has created much more uncertainty, stress and anxiety for hundreds of thousands of families across the country.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Leaseholders have very little recourse and, from the announcements today, their passage of recourse remains incredibly uncertain.

Let me start with what is in the Bill. The first major change sets up the building safety regulator, a key recommendation of the Hackitt report. The regulator will oversee “higher risk buildings,” which have been defined as essentially over 18 metres. The Select Committee raised questions about whether the scope should be extended. The Fire Brigades Union says that 11 metres or four storeys would be a safer threshold, as that is the threshold that firefighters can reach with their ladders. The Secretary of State himself said last year that we should not rely on

“crude height limits with binary consequences,”

that do not

“reflect the complexity of the challenge at hand.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 24.]

The two-tiered system this Bill creates is particularly stark when we look at privatised building control, which will continue to operate below 18 metres. The Hackitt report recognised that choice over building control inspection is a major weakness in the current system, allowing cosy relationships to flourish between developers and the private inspectors they pay handsomely.

The regulator will be the building control body for taller buildings, but not for those under 18 metres, even where other risks could remain. The Government should think again about their arbitrary definition of high-risk buildings.

Secondly, this Bill establishes clear responsibilities for building safety throughout a building’s life, in a golden thread of information. Lack of transparency was a key issue identified in the Hackitt report. The Grenfell inquiry has exposed how some building owners belittled residents as troublemakers rather than keeping them informed about the safety of their homes. The new system must be fully open and transparent to residents and leaseholders.

The need for transparency extends to the testing regime, which the Hackitt report found to be opaque and insufficient. While the Bill sets a framework for the regulation of construction products, the Government have kicked the issue of product testing down the road. This must be re-examined.

Thirdly, the Bill sets up limited mechanisms to recoup costs from developers, through legal action and a levy. The principle of the polluter must pay should apply to the building safety scandal. Labour has long been calling on the Government to take stronger action against developers who cut dangerous corners.

Extending the period in which a developer can be sued is welcome, but residents in many buildings will not be able to take advantage. The relationship of leaseholders and developers is like David and Goliath. Legal action is uncertain, expensive and risky, requiring money that leaseholders simply do not have. It also requires that a company still exists to sue, yet many have disappeared. What is more, given what we know from the Hackitt report and elsewhere, in how many cases can all the blame be legally pinned on a developer, given the failures of the regulatory regime at the time? Very few, I would imagine.

Finally, the Bill makes some changes around the new homes and social housing ombudsmen. After significant delay, some social housing reforms have finally come through, but how will the Secretary of State ensure that the social housing regulator has real teeth?

Although there are things we welcome in the Bill that will improve building safety into the future, there are, as I am sure we will hear from Members across the House, serious concerns about what is missing and the way in which ruinous costs for remediation works will still fall on leaseholders. What began as a cladding scandal after Grenfell has now led to a total breakdown in confidence in most tall and multi-storey buildings. This has now become a building safety crisis affecting hundreds of thousands of people. Young, first-time buyers have gone bankrupt. Couples have put having children on hold. Marriages have broken down. Life savings and assets have gone. Retirements have been ruined. The mental health and financial toll is incalculable.

Fundamentally, the Bill betrays leaseholders who will still face life-changing costs for problems that they did not create and who are trapped in unsellable, uninsurable and unmortgageable homes, notwithstanding some of the Secretary of State’s announcements today, which I fear will do little to resolve the situation. Two Prime Ministers, his two immediate predecessors and the Secretary of State himself have all said that leaseholders should not pay. I agree—I think we all agree in here—so why does the Bill not say it? On at least 17 different occasions in this House, they promised, even to their own Back Benchers, that they would protect leaseholders. We heard during the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021 that the Building Safety Bill was the place to do so, so where is it? It is not in there.

What is more, legal advice on what is in the Bill says that the betrayal of leaseholders is even worse. As drafted, the Bill bakes in leaseholders’ potential liability. Our legal advice is that clause 124 provides very little additional protections. Their legal opinion is that this Bill in its totality, including clause 99, makes it

“more certain that remediation costs will fall under service charges”—

and be passed on. So on the Government’s fundamental promise to leaseholders, the Bill fails. No wonder they are furious, and bereft.

Of course, I welcome the building safety fund; it is a good thing, and it could provide a solution for many buildings. I have to commend the Secretary of State on getting £5.1 billion out of the Chancellor—he seems to have better negotiating skills than his boss, the Prime Minister. It is a lot of money and it could go some way to resolving the situation if it is properly used, but I do not understand why his financial commitment is not being met with the same zeal and determination to give it proper effect. His approach has so far been blighted by inertia and indifference and is now beset by increasing costs, relying on those in the industry who have created much of this mess to get us out of it. I have to tell him that it is just not working. Even his own Back Benchers accused him of “shocking incompetence”, and I feel that that view might be spreading after today’s shenanigans with his statement.

Let me explain: the scope of the fund is way too narrow and the deadlines for applying too tight, and yet it is being administered far too slowly, with just 12p in every pound of the fund allocated. At its current pace, it will be 2027 before the fund is even allocated. And because there is no grip on the wider issues, as we have been discussing today—such as risk, cost, work quality, accountability and sign-off—nearly all multi-storey buildings are now affected. Even when cladding is removed, a new, ever-growing list of additional seemingly necessary works are added. This means that innocent and drained leaseholders are constantly at the mercy of a system, with no accountability and no confidence in it, with an industry unable to take on risk, cornering a broken market for works, arguing over responsibility and unwilling to insure, mortgage or step up, all the while leaving leaseholders carrying the can. That is why this crisis is now affecting so many and costs keep going up. The truth is that all sense of appropriate risk has gone out of the system. The Secretary of State has talked about that today, and I have heard him say it many times before, but I am not sure what he is doing about it. Notwithstanding what is in his statement today, I still do not know whether this will provide the transparency, the recourse, or the scrutiny that leaseholders need. He says that there should be a clear route for residents to challenge. What would that route be? How would it work? What teeth would it have? He said that there will be more guidelines. What are they? When will they be published? Can we see them? Will this really have the effect that leaseholders need it to have, because time is a luxury that these homeowners simply do not have.

This is not just about the one-off high remediation costs that homeowners are facing today; it is that insurance premiums have gone through the roof, service charges are rocketing, and the waking watch, which we have heard so much about, and other costs are leaving leaseholders paying hundreds of pounds a month extra already.

Recent Government guidance has made the situation worse. Their advice note from January 2020 effectively brought all buildings of any height into scope of the dreaded EWS1 form. After today’s announcement, is that now scrapped? Does that guidance note still exist? [Interruption.] I do not know whether it is in the statement. I did not read it in there. The Secretary of State is pointing to it from a sedentary position. If it is in there, people need to know that now so that we can discuss it, and we should have known it before this debate; it is a very important thing to know. If he wants to come to the Dispatch Box to tell us whether that January 2020 advice note is now effectively scrapped, he can do so, because it is essential that people know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Welcome to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is good to see you there.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill—it is a technical Bill, which we went through line by line and made recommendations—and I think that shows how the House should operate. I thank the Government, and the Minister for Building Safety and Communities in particular, for taking it seriously, responding to all our points in great detail and talking to us about it.

The Committee still have some concerns and wrote again to the Minister the other day about what we think is missing. One thing, of course, is building control. Developers should not be able to appoint their own building control inspectors, because that is a conflict of interest.

On risk, it is not height alone that makes buildings risky. A one-storey care home is potentially risky, and that must be taken into account in the role of the building safety regulator.

The Government are to come forward with proposals on the qualifications and training of everyone working on high-rise buildings. That is really important, because currently an electrician rewiring a flat in a high-rise development does not have to be qualified. Their employer must be part of a competent person scheme, but the individual does not have to be qualified anywhere in the building industry. Those matters need addressing now in the Bill.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does on his Committee. He made an important point about the independence of building control. Does he agree that it causes a considerable lack of confidence when people who have bought properties find they have no recourse and that there is a real question about the role of local authorities in building control?

[Mr Betts]

There are major issues about the independence of building control not just on the highest-rise buildings but right throughout the building industry. The Select Committee report drew attention to that.

On product testing, we await the Government’s proposals. Hackitt identified that the product testing regime is broken and needs fixing, and the Committee stands by its view that if a product that has gone to testing and failed a test comes commercially to the market, that information should be made available publicly. That is important information. The Government rejected that recommendation, but I hope they might consider it further.

It is very difficult to make comprehensive sense of the statement published today. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept an invitation to come to the Select Committee after the summer recess and discuss the matter with us in more detail. Whatever the statement says, it still leaves out buildings over 18 metres that have defects that are not just about cladding. Even when cladding defects have been put right, people are facing bills of £50,000 that they cannot afford. Where is the help for those leaseholders? It is not anywhere in the Bill.

I turn to buildings between 11 and 18 metres. I do not understand how the Secretary of State can say that systemic defects were not found in those buildings. Where does cladding fit into that? Will the removal of combustible cladding from buildings between 11 and 18 metres no longer be required? If it is still required, who will pay for it? The Government floated the idea of a loan scheme, but there is no reference to that in the Bill. Has the loan scheme been ditched? We need clarification on these important issues because leaseholders need certainty that they are not going to have to face these bills.

There are important issues in the Bill. It is generally to be welcomed. There are still issues that we want the Government to go further on, but the explanation in this statement of who is going to pay for some of the costs that the building safety fund does not cover is still an essential matter that the Government need to think again about.

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

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th July 2021 Public Bill Committees

I will also speak to clause 3, as the matter of who may be appointed as a company director is one for which legislative competence is transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Clause 3 applies similar provisions to those in clause 2, except that they are applied to the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. A legislative consent motion has been provided by the Northern Ireland Assembly, so I hope the Committee will agree that the changes will increase confidence in doing business across the UK, protect the business community and the wider public from the actions of delinquent directors, and send a strong message that the dissolution procedure may not be abused. I recommend that clauses 2 and 3 stand part of the Bill.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I thank the Minister for outlining in some detail the legislation before us and the rationale for clauses 2 and 3 of this short but important Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington stated, and as we both outlined at Second Reading, Labour is broadly supportive of the Bill, including the measures to close the dissolution loophole, which are needed to help tackle phoenixism, and which had almost unanimous support in all the oral and written evidence that the Committee received. There was also support for allowing action retrospectively; it is a welcome addition to the insolvency framework.

As the Committee heard from witnesses on Tuesday, unscrupulous directors can cause significant suffering to those who have invested in, or provided loans to, their company. We have also heard that the payment of employment tribunal awards can be affected. Too often, corrupt directors are able to absolve themselves of their financial responsibilities through dissolution, due to the time and money required for creditors to restore the company before being able to take action against it or the directors. As we heard in evidence, the Bill should therefore positively impact on creditor confidence. We also know that the taxpayer is now becoming a victim of this process, and that the action being taken is more limited due to the blunt tools and insufficient powers currently available, as unscrupulous directors seek to avoid paying back covid support loans.

It is therefore welcome that clauses 2 and 3, which deal with Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively, remove the requirement for a dissolved company to be restored before the Government can act. The key change being made is that the powers available to the Secretary of State to investigate former directors of insolvent companies will be extended to cover dissolved companies. It will become easier for the Government to investigate the conduct of dissolved companies and, consequently, to seek disqualification orders or undertakings if desired.

However, although the clauses are a positive step, there are a number of concerns, most notably around the resourcing of the Insolvency Service, the Government’s plans and performance in relation to action taken in the investigation and disqualification of directors, and Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the outcomes of the legislation. Those gaps will, in our view, significantly limit the potential effectiveness of the Bill in its efforts to tackle financial corruption—potentially costing creditors, the Government and the public billions of pounds. Labour is calling for new clauses 1 and 3, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, to be added to the Bill to address those gaps.

New clause 1 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay a report before the House every three months following the passing of the Bill, outlining how many directors have been investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service. New clause 3 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill a year after it comes into force. That assessment would consider the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives, the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to the investigation and disqualification of directors, and possible changes to law and policy.

In relation to new clause 1, I will outline some concerns on resourcing for investigations and action, including disqualifications. As Duncan Swift, the former president of R3, highlighted on Tuesday, the Bill could result in the Insolvency Service taking on “10 to 15 times” the number of investigations that it currently undertakes. However, there is no indication in the Bill, or in the Government’s intentions around it, that the Government plan to increase funding and resources at all for the Insolvency Service, let alone by 10 to 15 times, to allow it to cope with that potentially huge increase in workload.

That is despite the fact that R3 members, as identified in its evidence, often report encountering cases showing significant legal breaches by directors that, to their surprise, do not lead to disqualification. Several witnesses have suggested that the Insolvency Service is woefully under-resourced as it is. Without the necessary extra funding and resources for the Insolvency Service, the Bill’s aims of disqualifying unscrupulous directors or seeking undertakings simply will not be met. In fact, the measures introduced by the Bill may come at the expense of what the Insolvency Service is currently able to do in terms of investigating insolvent companies.

On top of that, we know that the Insolvency Service cannot apply to court for the disqualification of a director whose company has been dissolved for three years or more. That means that the Insolvency Service does not just need the extra resources to carry out those additional investigations, but needs to carry them out promptly and within the three-year timeframe. As Dr Tribe summarised on Tuesday, the Insolvency Service

“needs to be properly funded to ensure that this additional disqualification work can happen.”––[Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 18, Q29.]

All may go smoothly. There may be no backlog, no issues and no need to review the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting its goals, but we need to know that, and Parliament must be able to scrutinise in a timely and effective way. I hope that the Minister will support Labour’s call for new clause 1 to be added to the Bill, because surely this will be a report that he, too, will want to receive. On Second Reading, the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets said that the Government

“will be working with the Insolvency Service to ensure that it has the resources to do its job.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 83.]

Those may have been reassuring words to get us through this week, but we want to be able to see the outcomes of the process and how well the system is working. Surely that is in all our interests, both as parliamentarians and as constituency MPs.

New clause 1 would ensure regular reporting on the number of directors of dissolved companies investigated and disqualified by the Insolvency Service. In doing so, it would provide oversight and scrutiny around the Insolvency Service’s ability to implement the measures in the Bill. It would alert the House to any resourcing issues facing the Insolvency Service and evidence the need for extra funding in order to fulfil the aims of this Bill.

Another significant gap in the Bill is the lack of detail surrounding how the Government plan to act following the potential disqualification of directors. Disqualification itself does not provide measures for repayment so, on its own, it is not enough of a deterrent to prevent directors from acting unscrupulously. As Duncan Swift summarised on Tuesday:

“The serious rogue directors do not see being disqualified as a significant deterrent.”––[Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c. 60, Q96.]

What does represent a deterrent is being held to account for misappropriated assets and having personal liability for actions wrongfully undertaken as a director. Compensation orders are mentioned in the Bill. Since they have been introduced, very few compensation orders have been issued and their effectiveness has been unclear. Insolvency is a tried and tested way of recovering monies owed to creditors. Thousands of insolvency procedures take place every year that return hundreds of millions of pounds to creditors, but these processes are not without time, cost and considerable stress.

In order for the Insolvency Service, the courts and creditors to have clarity over what this Bill means, the Government should address the legislative gap. In order for the Bill to be effective, they must ensure this policy acts as a deterrent to unscrupulous directors and allows the aims of this Bill to be met.

That is why Labour has tabled new clause 3, which I am speaking to now. It would ensure that an annual assessment was made of the Bill’s effectiveness in acting as a deterrent to unscrupulous directors and at recouping owed monies. It will encourage the consideration of changes to the Bill to aid its effectiveness, making up for the current gaps in the Bill’s detail.

Clauses 2 and 3, which makes the same change to legislation in Northern Ireland, are broadly welcomed by the Labour party. We are pleased that a legal loophole, exploited for too long by unscrupulous directors, will finally be closed, but the Bill does not contain the details and or provide the oversight that Parliament needs to scrutinise its effectiveness and the outcomes it seeks to achieve. That was why we tabled new clauses 1 and 3: to ensure that the Insolvency Service is given the funding it needs to carry out the Bill’s goals, and to see disqualified directors repaying their loans and being held accountable for their liabilities in the most effective way.

I hope that the Committee sees the value of these new clauses and what they bring to the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Luke Hall]

I again thank the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached this useful discussion throughout the passage of the Bill. I am grateful for the contributions on new clauses 1 and 3, which would require the Secretary of State to make reports every three months to Parliament on the number of directors investigated and disqualified under the provisions in the Bill, and to report their effectiveness after one year.

I reassure the Committee that the Insolvency Service routinely produces insolvency statistics, covering company insolvencies in the UK and individual insolvencies in England and Wales, as well as some of the underlying data alongside that. These are published online, available to everybody, every three months. At the start of the pandemic, the Insolvency Service undertook to provisionally add experimental monthly data releases concerning insolvency numbers. In this way, the statistics could act as an indicator on the pandemic’s impact on insolvencies.

As well as the quarterly releases of insolvency statistics, information about the Insolvency Service’s enforcement activities is published and updated monthly. This data includes the number of companies wound up in the public interest and the number of disqualification orders and undertakings, broken down by the relevant section of the CDDA under which they were sought. Information on the length of the periods of disqualification is included and there is an annual report on the nature of the misconduct being alleged.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Lady want to move new clause 1 formally?

[Seema Malhotra]

In the light of the Minister’s response, I will not press it today, but we would be interested in further discussions on the review that the Minister has outlined and we will return to this issue on Report.

New Clause 2

Effectiveness of non-domestic rating lists provisions

“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of one year after the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effectiveness of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.

(2) The assessment must include consideration of—

(a) the extent to which the provisions have achieved their objectives;

(b) the interaction of the provisions with other law and policy relating to coronavirus support for business and business rates; and

(c) possible related changes to law and policy.”—(Jeff Smith.)

This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the provisions in section 1 of this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Jeff Smith]

Q That takes me on to another question, specifically for Mr Magor, but Mr Blaylock may have a comment as well. The IRRV written evidence that we received flags up the issue of how you differentiate between covid and non-covid challenges and says that a “transparent, evidence-based process” needs to be adopted. I completely agree. I suppose the big question is how you do that. Would you have any comments on how you might define the difference between a covid and a non-covid challenge?

David Magor: The challenges are laid down in legislation; we know what the challenges, and the circumstances surrounding those challenges, are. It is for the valuation officer to look at every individual challenge and how that challenge is made up, and to decide whether it is covid-related or related to a normal material change of circumstance.

The important thing is that the valuation officer inspects every challenge and makes a reasonable decision in every case. That will be absolutely critical. The ones that are covid alone will stand out quite clearly. However, with those where you perhaps have a change in the high street, with the closure of a major retailer because of trading patterns, you have to be very careful to make sure that you do not mistake the fact that the retailer was intending to close anyway for the impact of covid. Remember, the valuation officer is very experienced in this process. The material change of circumstance legislation has been around for a long time, and there is lots of case law. There is absolutely no reason why the valuation officer cannot act in a reasonable and transparent way.

Adrian Blaylock: What David says is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that there are material changes of circumstance that are not related to covid. These can still go through the normal process, and the Valuation Office Agency should be able to distinguish between the different types.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Thank you both for giving evidence to us today. I wonder if I could get your views on the value of what I think you have described as a “funding pot”—the £1.5 billion that has been allocated. Do you have concerns about the sufficiency of that, and what are those concerns based on?

The second question is more specifically to Mr Blaylock and relates to the IRRV’s evidence, in particular to paragraph 6, where you are talking about the benefits of amending provisions of section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. It would be useful to talk through your argument there to help us understand it.

Adrian Blaylock: That is probably aimed at Mr Magor, rather than me. It is really hard to know whether the size of the pot—the £1.5 billion—is large enough or not. The way I expect this scheme to work is for the Government to release guidance on the types of business they expect local government to support. In the announcement on 25 March, they gave a couple of examples of types of businesses that have not been affected but would see a reduction due to a material change of circumstance, and one that has been affected but would not see a reduction through a material change of circumstance.

Local government has to follow guidance issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. That is in the regulations; section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 says that it must be taken into account. Until we know exactly the types of business the Government are expecting local government to give support to, it is really hard to say whether £1.5 billion is enough. Airports were given as an example. If airports appear in the guidance as something that the Government want local government to support, as Mr Magor says, their rateable values are large, and therefore the pot probably would not be sufficient, but it is really hard to say at this point in time.

David Magor: On the size of the overall pot, we at the institute have the advantage of having a comprehensive database going back to 1990 of all non-domestic properties. We have been looking at that database and trying to do some early forecasting of how big the pot should be.

You can see from the ministerial statements that the Minister has made quite clear exactly the direction that he wants the relief to go in. You can do a rough calculation by taking out retail, hospitality and leisure properties, exempt properties, small businesses and so on, and you are left with an effective amount of rateable value and an effective number of properties that would get the relief. Of course, the Government have also added local economic factors into the decision on the distribution of the pot, and we do not know the detail of them.

If you look at the eligible rateable value and the eligible properties, once you take out the exempt properties and those that have already received relief, you start to come to a figure well in excess of £1.5 billion. You are starting to look at a figure perhaps three times that amount. Initially, that sounds quite frightening, but of course we do not know the economic impact of covid on individual companies. Again, the Minister said in his guidance that the scheme will be by application, so it will be for companies to choose whether they apply.

No doubt, if we see the draft guidance and it gives clear indications of the way local government is to work, you can frame an application form in such a way that it will target the relief at those in most need. Until we see the guidance, it is difficult to give a clear forecast of whether the pot is large enough, mainly because of the mysterious economic factor. The implication from the Minister’s statements is that it will differ from area to area, so it will be impossible to know what figures the Minister has taken into account unless we have absolute transparency and those figures are made available.

Of course, there is a danger that individual local authorities will challenge the figure. If it is not sufficiently clear, the first thing that elected members will do is compare their figure with that of a similar local authority, and if it is significantly different, they will want to know why, so there are a few challenges ahead for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Baynes]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. Is there a sense in which the timing of the rate revaluation is a helpful coincidence, in that it could mitigate some of the issues that ratepayers might have with the change to their business arising from coronavirus, perhaps particularly where a business has been badly affected and has to change its whole focus? Is the revaluation a way to mitigate that, and is that a helpful coincidence of timing?

David Magor: It is a helpful coincidence of timing. There is an antecedent evaluation date, and the rental evidence gathered to determine the values for the next evaluation list will reflect the circumstances of the pandemic and what is happening in the property market. The valuation officer has started to call for that evidence, which is required by statute and will reflect the current situation. Therefore, the list coming into force in 2023 will reflect the current difficult circumstances and, as you rightly say, potential changes in trading patterns and other things.

Adrian Blaylock: I agree. It is convenient it coincides, so will do exactly what David says.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q To ask a follow-up question, you were talking about local authorities and schemes they may need to set up, Mr Magor. What are you expecting in the guidance from Ministers? How soon does that guidance need to come? We heard concerns about how quickly this needs to happen. From your experience, could you share your view on how long that pot could last? Does there need to be reporting and review of expenditure? What do you expect from the Government on that and on working with local authorities on this?

David Magor: I know Adrian will pick up on the impact of it, but I will start. On the guidance, for reliefs under section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the Minster is required to give guidance and local authorities to have regard to it. You would expect the guidance to be sufficient to enable local authorities to develop a scheme within the Government’s wishes. From ministerial statements, we know that that scheme will not include awarding relief to retail, hospitality and leisure, or those in receipt of other reliefs that remove their rate liability, and that economic factors will be considered from company to company. I would expect the guidance to clarify those issues and make it clear how the individual pots will operate.

I would also expect it to give local authorities an element of discretion—after all, section 47 is about discretionary relief—to have a scheme shaped for their area. This is why it has to be done in stages. The first is passing the Bill into law. Then, you issue the guidance with the distribution, give local authorities a chance to analyse that distribution and understand whether it is fair, and what to do at a local level. Local authorities then have regard to that guidance and devise a scheme, which has to be done quickly.

If we had not had this proposed change in the law, the valuation officer and ratepayers’ agents would be settling matters now, and I suspect refunds would have started to circulate. If this scheme is to replace those MCC challenges, you would like to think it would be in force later this year, and that any reliefs would be paid during the current financial year— that must be the aim.

The pot is a one-off that would be distributed as quickly as possible, because now is the time when the money is needed. The real issue for local authorities is devising a scheme and ensuring that they can distribute the pot fairly, and that they do not run out of money. That, in itself, will be a massive problem.

Adrian Blaylock: The only point I would add to that is timing. I think you questioned the timing and the need for haste; as David said, businesses need this money now. The only thing I would question is to ask what this relief pot meant to be compensating for. The majority of the lockdown measures and the restrictions applied during 2020-21 rather than during 2021-22, and there is a specific part of section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act that says that a local authority cannot take a decision more than six months after the financial year to which the decision relates. So, strictly speaking, as at the end of September a local authority will not be permitted to give discretionary relief rate back into 2020-21. That means that either everything needs to be in place and all the local schemes need to be up and running by the end of September, or the relief is not given for 2020-21 but is given for 2021-22 instead. However, what then happens to the businesses that had a material change of circumstances lodged for 2020-21 that are no longer in existence? They have missed out on that.

As for the timing, it is important that the Bill gets through as quickly as possible, but it is also important for people to understand that local government also have to go through their own governance processes. Devising a scheme is not just a case of somebody sitting at a desk and saying, “There you go, this is our scheme”. It needs to go through the proper governance process, which will take time. It could take two or three months for all that to go through its own internal processes, on top of whatever time it takes for the legislation to be passed and the guidance and allocations to be issued by MHCLG. Timing is crucial in this process.

[Jeff Smith]

Q Looking at the parliamentary timetable, it seems very unlikely that the Bill will be passed before the end of September, which creates the problem that you have just identified. I think we are all fairly clear that the Bill will pass at some point. Is there any reason, in your view, why the Government cannot give indicative guidance ahead of—you talked about it being in three stages—stage 1 being completed? Is there any reason why indicative guidance and possibly indicative valuation amounts for each local authority could not be given?

Adrian Blaylock: I do not see why not. If the Government have already taken the decision on the value of the pot—I do not know what they are doing about the allocations, but if they can work out what the allocations need to be for each local authority, they must have a clue now what they want to support, what areas they want to support and where they want local government to focus their attention. If that was to happen, it would allow local government to start formulating plans and start going through the process of putting together their own local policies. I think that would be a positive step.

David Magor: I agree wholeheartedly with that. Draft guidance and an indicative figure of the amount for each local authority would be most welcome at this stage. It would enable planning to start; it would also enable the local authorities to challenge. Better those challenges come now, as we are preparing. We are going through—let us hope—a long, hot summer, and through that long, hot summer local government accountants have nothing better to do than to work out what their relief should be, so I am sure that they would be pleased to see some indicative figures and draft guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall]

Q It would be interesting to hear your view, from a local government perspective, on exactly why the LGA thinks that ruling out MCC appeals for councils provides extra certainty—I think that is what the LGA has said—and how big a difference that has made to councils and their planning of their finances.

Sarah Pickup: There is a greater degree of certainty, because they do not face a period of time of not knowing whether an appeal will be successful or not, nor the extent of that success, and therefore having to make additional provisions on their balance sheet. Instead, they have a scheme to operate that offers them resources to provide discretionary funds to local businesses, which is welcome. As we have said, there is still some uncertainty in relation to what the guidance says and whether the scheme delivers what businesses expect, and whether, if not, there is either a pressure on the council to fund beyond the resources that have been made available, or a pressure because businesses cannot manage without the relief that they had been expecting, and therefore some businesses start to fail.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q As a slightly different angle on this, I was just wondering about any contact that you may have had, or experience that you may have had, with the Valuation Office Agency at the moment, and whether it has the resources it needs for the work it is currently undertaking—its existing functions—as well. I would be very interested in your perspective on that.

Sarah Pickup: I do not have detailed knowledge of its precise funding at the moment, but over time, we certainly have made a case that we support the Valuation Office Agency being funded adequately to deal with the task in hand, because there has been a very big backlog of appeals on the books. It has been pulling those down, and the change to check, challenge, appeal has impacted on that. Nevertheless, there is still a backlog, and our fears were that if the Agency was not properly resourced, you would end up with overlapping backlogs of appeals from different rating lists creating ever more uncertainty and not really taking away that need for councils to keep assessing the provisions that they need to make on their balance sheets.

One of the things that we certainly would support is a time limit on the time when businesses can put forward checks, challenges, and especially appeals against any given rating list. We think that would help, and it is in place, I believe, in some of the other UK nations.

[Ms Rimmer]

Q The business rate revaluation that is currently taking place should be concluded in March 2022. The Bill would prevent businesses from retrospectively making an appeal against rateable values as they are now, even when the new system is in place. Is that provision necessary?

Sarah Pickup: This was probably picked up by your previous contributors. Because the basis of a valuation is based on rent as of March 2021, that valuation date sits in the middle of the pandemic, so the question is whether any adjustments are made to that or not. You would think that the impact of the pandemic on rental values would be reflected in the valuations going forward for the list starting in 2023, but clearly we will not know that until we go forward.

The other point is that it is a very changeable picture, and businesses will continue to be able to appeal based on changes in circumstances. Things that are currently due to covid could turn out to be long-term impacts on businesses, in which case I think they move into a different category. If you lose trade as a result of covid, that is one thing, but if your business goes into permanent decline, it becomes a very substantial and permanent change in circumstances, and that probably falls into a different category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

Q What tools should the Government use to follow and recoup the money from the directors identified as culpable in these circumstances?

Andrew Agathangelou: I am quite a plain-speaking person, so forgive me, but I am about to be quite plain. The regulators need to enforce. There is evidence to suggest that, for example, despite the fact that one of the most important statutory duties of the Financial Conduct Authority—our primary conduct regulator in the UK for the financial service industry—is to try to protect consumers from harm, it is a little reluctant to enforce. That is not my opinion; the chief executive and the chairman of the Financial Conduct Authority gave evidence to the Treasury Committee earlier this year—I will try to find the link for you—admitting, frankly, that they were risk averse, I think the phrase was, when it comes to enforcing and mitigating. That is not verbatim, but that was the gist of it.

Would it not be good, ladies and gentlemen, if as well as having rules in place designed to protect consumers, we had a regulatory framework that had the gumption to go after the baddies whenever it could? There are two very important reasons for that. First, we might get them locked up or make them pay fines, and so on. That is great. That is exactly what we want, but even more importantly than that, it will show that there is good reason for these dodgy directors to not carry on their wicked craft.

It is currently a very low-risk career path for somebody to become a criminally minded director of a company. The chances of their getting caught are very low. The chances of their paying a fine are very low. The chances of their being banged up are also very low. Why? Because the regulatory framework as a whole is not built to cope with the tsunami of criminal activity that is going on. I would say, from a long list of potential improvements, that one of them would be to please encourage our regulators to regulate robustly and enforce effectively.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Let me follow up on that. Thank you for giving evidence. You laid out a broad landscape of institutions and organisations that you said were together allowing the crime to go on, on the scale that you believe it is. You went on to say that the regulation is not really built to cope with what is happening. As part of that systemic issue, what do you think the Insolvency Service is not doing as well as it should, and does it have the resources that it needs to perform its functions effectively?

Andrew Agathangelou: I will answer your question, but before I do I would like to elaborate on a small point that you made. I actually think that the regulatory framework has been built by Parliament to do what it is designed to do. The problem is not that it is not capable of doing it; it just does not do it. It is a bit like having a really fast car that is just not being driven fast by the driver. The problem is not the vehicle; it is who or what is controlling it. I just thought I would throw that in.

To respond to your question more specifically, again I am a plain-speaking person. The Transparency Task Force ran an event last Thursday, with the title “The Great Insolvency Scam”. I can provide the Committee with the recorded video testimony of that. The reason why we ran an event called “The Great Insolvency Scam” is that we see insolvency as a very dark and murky part of the world of business and commerce. We believe that there is a pile of evidence suggesting that the Insolvency Service has been weaponised. That is where the Insolvency Service is frankly abusing its very extensive powers.

The net result is that people sometimes have their homes or businesses taken away from them, as a consequence of engineered bankruptcies. It really is an horrific, dark area. It sometimes results in people self-harming, committing suicide and all the rest of it. I will now answer your question directly. Personally, the Insolvency Service is a can of worms. I will repeat that it is my personal opinion. I think the Insolvency Service, in part, is a can of worms that needs to be opened up and looked into. It needs to be properly regulated.

I have enormous concern about giving the Insolvency Service lots more money to carry out the additional work that is going to be necessary as a consequence of this Bill going through, if it does, without first ensuring that the service is fit for purpose. These are very strong views. I am not an extreme individual who has crazy ideas. I have just listened to and seen the testimony of people who have suffered as a consequence of the types of things I am talking about.

Think of this Bill as the start of an ongoing process of reform. Please do not think of it as the end point. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that it is a “job done” situation. It really is not. There is so much to be looked at. I ask the Committee to do all it can, on behalf of the British public, to ensure that the Insolvency Service stops doing what it sometimes does.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Q Good afternoon, Mr Agathangelou. Picking up on your last point, I do not know if you are aware that a couple of amendments have been tabled that would require the Minister to come back to Parliament and report at a future date, first, on the extent to which the powers of the Bill had been used and, secondly, with an assessment of how effective the Bill had been in addressing the problems that had been identified. In your view, would those amendments strengthen the Bill, make it weaker or make no difference?

Andrew Agathangelou: If the purpose of the Bill is to have a positive effect, of course they would. You manage what you are monitoring. If things are being looked at and checked, and if the progress you are hoping will happen does not, you have a chance to review, to modify and to ask challenging questions about why what Parliament wanted to happen has not.

There is a great parallel. I was involved in giving evidence on the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill 2021-22 a while ago. The parallel there applies here. It is absolutely vital that there is a requirement for those responsible for executing the will of Parliament to be accountable and to be able to demonstrate that they have done so.

I would be disappointed if it took an amendment to make that happen. It should go without saying that you do not just abdicate your authority, pass the Bill and hope it happens. That to me would be a very poor approach to governance in terms of ensuring that legislation is effective. Essentially, if you want the Bill to work, you must ensure that what is supposed to happen after it is passed does actually happen. To my mind, frankly, that is very clear and obvious, and I cannot begin to think what the argument against that would be. How on earth could somebody argue against the idea of making sure that something you hope works does work? I could not even begin to think about how to argue that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

Q Finally, have you had any conversations with the Government about that mechanism and guidance? Are they taking soundings from hospitality businesses in particular about how that might work?

Kate Nicholls: Yes, they are. We are having conversations with the three main Departments that we work with—the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on the food supply and wholesale side—to ensure they are pushing to make sure that grant guidance is as comprehensive as possible and identifies the businesses that need to be caught that have been missed in the past but are disproportionally affected by covid. We are also urging that concern and care are taken to include businesses that have been particularly adversely affected as a result of the delay in step 4.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you very much, Ms Nicholls, for your evidence. Do you want to add anything further about businesses that have been excluded from other support that you believe should be within the scope and remit of—and therefore eligible for—this funding? Secondly, are you concerned about delays to the funding? How quickly do you think it needs to be made available?

Kate Nicholls: The quicker, the better is all I can say. A lot of hospitality businesses and their supply chains are clinging on by their fingertips, particularly given that they have had an extra month of restrictions imposed on them. A quarter of hospitality businesses have not been able to open and legally cannot until 19 July.

The remainder are subject to severe restrictions, meaning a loss of revenue of £3 billion. That impacts up the supply chain because if we are not operating at full capacity, we cannot get our supply chain kickstarted. The delay and cooling effect of that month of extra restrictions is significant, particularly in our town and city centre businesses.

We need to have that money as rapidly as possible, particularly because business rates bills started to kick in again for hospitality from the 1st of this month. Some £100 million of business rates bills started to be felt by the most affected businesses; that flows up through the supply chain as it tightens the credit and liquidity within the market.

The money needs to come as rapidly as possible and local authorities need to be given incentives to make that payment as rapidly as they can through the mechanism, so that delays do not hit. The danger is that if you leave it too late, you fail to get support to the businesses that are teetering on the brink and nearly surviving. We have lost an awful lot within hospitality in our supply chain, and we need to make sure we can keep those that are on the brink. The more swiftly we get money to them, the better.

On those businesses that have not benefited and need to be prioritised in this round of funding, the main ones highlighted are events, contract and office catering, particularly those in town and city centres where the delays will happen. You need a concentration on activities in central London, where businesses will not get back on their feet until we get international travel and office workers back in significant volumes. London hospitality is operating at about 20% to 30% of normal revenue levels; in the rest of the country, it is about 60% to 70%.

There is a severe lag on the central London activity zone and a heavy concentration of affected businesses in those two local authority areas, as well as Southwark on the south bank. You need to have focus on town and city centre areas, as well as the other businesses such as catering, weddings, events, conferences and banqueting, the freelance support and supply chain businesses that sit alongside those, and food wholesale, distribution and logistics.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you; that was very helpful. Within the sector, and from wider discussions you have had with those excluded, are you aware of businesses that have put in MCC appeals? What is the general feeling about this legislation?

Kate Nicholls: Yes, we had businesses that started to put in MCC appeals midway through the pandemic, when it was obvious that its effect was going to be much longer lasting than was first anticipated at the beginning of last year. A number of holiday parks, camping and caravan parks, golf courses and bigger holiday and hotel resorts put in MCC appeals. A number had been lined up for town and city centre pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels. Then there was the announcement that the MCC appeals would not be allowed under covid—that would not be a legitimate reason for an MCC appeal.

In our sector, MCC appeals are one of the few ways in which we can adjust our rateable value and our rates bills, which are incredibly high: they are the second biggest overhead as our businesses adapt to structural changes in the economy. While we might have thought that covid would be a temporary blip and a temporary impact on the economy, it is quite clear that for many businesses, particularly in towns and city centres, where there are changes to ways of working and to retail office accommodation, we are seeing a structural change that will have a longer-term impact.

People are very concerned, particularly as we move through this period when we have support and a tapering of relief on business rates at hospitality venues that comes to an end in April 2022. The concern is about what happens when we revert to rateable values and rates bills as normal in April 2022, because those bills will be set according to rateable values that were set for rents in 2015, at the height of the property market.

We are going to come back to rates bills at the highest levels we have ever seen them, having had a delay in revaluation. We will have had a long term without a market adjustment and therefore there is a concern that those businesses for which there is clearly a structural change in the marketplace are prohibited from making an appeal now that allows them to get ready for April 2022.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Finally, have you seen a rise in businesses that may have experienced debt and other challenges being dissolved? What does the data in your membership say about what has been driving that? Are there any wider issues around the dissolving of companies that we should be aware of?

Kate Nicholls: Thankfully, we have seen very few companies in this sector go into liquidation. We have seen some administrations and some companies being revived with inward investment, particularly in the late-night sector. The areas where we have seen the biggest contractions are office-based and London-based.

We have seen a high number of business failures of individual sites and small and medium-sized enterprises. In particular, we have had contraction in the market of 12,000 hospitality businesses from covid from April 2020 to March 2021. That is a contraction of about minus 8% for pubs and bars, plus 10% for restaurants and hotels, but in major conurbations in the heart of our cities, one in five businesses has failed through the covid crisis. Part of that is very high levels of debt, and that will continue to accelerate business failure and business closure as we come out of this. The first date at which our sector can go cash positive is 19 July, but it is estimated it will take two years before the sector can recover to 2019 pre-pandemic revenue levels and profitability.

As we come out of this, we see a heavily in-debt sector. Previously, debt was used to fund growth and further investment. Pre-pandemic, we were opening two sites a day as we expanded our pubs, bars, restaurants and hotel chains; that was funded largely through the debt and earnings of the businesses. Over the course of the pandemic, we have seen that while the rest of the economy has corporate deposits that are twice the level of corporate debt, in hospitality it is exactly the opposite. We have twice the level of debt as corporate deposits, which means that our sector is going to come out with an anchor on its potential growth and recovery, because it will have to pay down and service that debt and that will delay the recovery further.

You are looking at about £2 billion or £2.5 billion of rent debt. We are waiting to see the Government’s proposals in the detail of the Bill that will help to resolve that. There is also £6 billion of Government-backed loans, which many businesses started to repay this month. That is very challenging when they have limited revenue coming in or heavily restricted revenue. Paying down that debt will to take a lot of time to get through and to get over, and we fear very much that the level of business failure that we saw during the covid crisis will be replicated in the two years as we come out of it, as we try to recover.

[Jeff Smith]

Q Can I follow up on a specific question that follows from something you said earlier? I was interested to hear you say that the hospitality trading levels in London are 20% to 30% of what they would normally be, and in the rest of the country it is around 60% to 70%. That is partly down to international travel, and I am guessing that there might also be areas—maybe coastal towns—that might be similarly affected by lack of footfall. I am wondering whether there is an evidence base for those regional or city-based variations that the Government might take into account in guiding the allocations, or is that a little bit too sophisticated to get into?

Kate Nicholls: It is certainly challenging to be able to get into, and I am not sure it would drill down as closely as local authority by local authority level, but there are certainly indications. You can measure footfall drops by high street data: there is good data from Springboard about footfall in our high streets, towns and city centres, as well as shopping centres. They are measuring it for retailers, but that would also apply to hospitality businesses. It is not just the international tourists: it is the offices, the work from home, and it affects different city centres differently according to the demographic that uses them. It is less to do with our coastal towns—they are benefiting from more domestic tourism and domestic footfall—but you are seeing it in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, and to a lesser extent Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle. They are seeing a drop, but London is particularly badly affected because 70% of London hospitality is inbound tourism, and we are not going to see any pick-up in inbound tourism any time soon.

I think there are broad regional differences that you can apply: it is a very rough and ready crude assessment that you can place on it, but there is a possibility of looking at footfall data. However, I would urge the Government to look at the areas of the country and the constituencies where you have a disproportionately dense population of hospitality and tourism businesses—many of which will be SMEs—and where you have the supply chain businesses that support them. They tend to be local supply chains and to be geographically co-located, so that would be a good indicator of where that support needs to be directed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We are grateful to you, too, for your flexibility on timing.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you for giving evidence to us today, Mr Swift. I wonder whether you might want to make some opening remarks about your general views of the Bill and whether you support the measures in it.

Duncan Swift: I will be pleased to do so. It is fair to say that the Bill is regarded by R3 and the profession as a step in the right direction. It has been something that we have been seeking for several years now. However, I have to say that it is not a complete solution to the use of company dissolution as a vehicle for fraud.

To expand on that point, the shortfalls relate to the scale of the problem, which the Bill does not address. It also does not necessarily address fully what remedy is applied in the prosecution of directors or in relation to gaining redress for creditors who have lost out in the use of company dissolution for fraud.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Could you say more about the scale? You talked about what you saw as the scale of the issue. What is your experience of that?

Duncan Swift: There are two things in the context of scale. One is that the Insolvency Service undertakes company director disqualification in relation to the 17,000-odd UK corporate insolvencies that occur annually. It typically achieves about 1,200 disqualifications per annum. R3 members report that they often encounter cases involving significant breaches by directors of Insolvency Act 1986 and Companies Act 2006 requirements that are not included in the company director disqualifications at all, which would suggest that the Insolvency Service is somewhat resource-constrained.

On the flip side, there are about 400,000 to 500,000 company dissolutions per annum. Nobody is quite sure just how many of those are insolvent company dissolutions, but the last time it was looked at in any detail, it was thought that about 50% of that total might be insolvent company dissolutions. That is 10 to 15 times greater than the corporate insolvency volume I talked about earlier. One has to ask whether the Insolvency Service will be scaled up 10 to 15 times to deal with that magnitude of investigation into insolvent dissolutions, or whether the investigation of insolvent dissolutions will come at the expense of investigations into errant director behaviour in insolvencies.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q You have written in, but not formally, I do not think, to the Committee with evidence. I think you have written to Members of Parliament before. I wonder whether you might be able to put some of those ballpark calculations in a note to the Committee.

Duncan Swift: Yes, R3 will be happy to supply that to you.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you. You raise some quite serious concerns about the resourcing of the Insolvency Service. Are you and your members concerned, then, that action is not being taken against directors against whom action should be taken? Are you seeing that result in phoenixism? Have you seen that and have your members seen that?

Duncan Swift: From the reports of R3 members, we are seeing surprise that adverse director conduct reports on serious misconduct have not resulted in disqualification of the directors. Whether that caused phoenixism or meant that the directors went on to commit the same type of misbehaviour in other corporate situations, I am not able to advise.

As a trade association, our member feedback is that the number of 1,200 disqualifications per annum, which is a fairly regular number over the past several years, appears to be fewer than the volume of cases where adverse director conduct reports have been submitted, which would warrant such disqualifications being issued.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q That is very helpful—thank you. Could I ask further about when you have submitted reports and where action has been taken by the Insolvency Service and the Government? How do you think the Government should facilitate the repayment of loans from disqualified directors? Do you see that as through compensation orders? What other tools do you think could be used?

Duncan Swift: That is one area where the Bill, as presented, appears to be incomplete. Mention is made to using things such as compensation orders, but that ordinarily benefits only a single creditor. I would anticipate that in this scenario that would be the public purse in the form of HM Revenue and Customs. Director disqualification in itself, which is the investigation and prosecution process that is envisaged, does not yield compensation to any party. All it yields is a decision that the behaviour of a director is such that they should be disqualified from acting as a director in future. It does not set the compensation mechanism or the process for compensation, whether to a single creditor or the creditor body as a whole.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q To follow up on that briefly, in your view there is an inadequacy in the legislation at the moment. Do you think that there is more that needs to be done? What would you want that to look like?

Duncan Swift: On what needs to be done, disqualifications that prevent directors doing the same errant actions again is clearly a step in the right direction. Other actions that could be taken include enabling restoration of dissolved companies more readily to the register where such errant behaviour has taken place. I mentioned the number of 400,000 to 500,000 dissolutions—as in strike-offs—per annum, of which it is estimated about half are insolvent. Yet only 1% of strike-off companies are put through a process to restore them to the register. We are talking about 4,000 to 5,000 companies a year. That process, from experience, is a court-driven process that typically costs the applicant, normally a creditor, a few thousand pounds in legal costs, to get the company restored to the register, in order to have a licensed insolvency practitioner appointed to it, whether in a compulsory liquidation or a creditors’ voluntary liquidation, so as to investigate the company’s affairs, and recover assets that might have been misappropriated by its directors.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q From your experience, how long was that process taking?

Duncan Swift: From experience, in terms of restoration pre-pandemic, you could be looking at 12, maybe 18 months. With the restrictions on court time in the pandemic, it is taking a lot longer.

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

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Q Hi, and thanks for coming to give evidence. I am just trying to get a picture of the scale of the problem. To what extent do you think this is a problem? Are the measures in this legislation adequate to deal with the scale of the problem that you think is out there?

Stephen Pegge: To put it in context, the Insolvency Service estimates that there is currently evidence of misconduct or misuse of dissolution process in only 1% of cases. Given that there are something like 500,000 dissolutions a year, that might amount to only about 5,000 cases. There is some evidence that it is a rising problem and, given that the average company that is dissolved might have a loan of say £200,000, even 5,000 cases could amount to a risk to creditors of up to £1 billion. It is significant in scale because of the large number of companies, even if it is not currently a high level of risk in proportionate terms. I would emphasise that the vast majority of businesses are honest and straightforward and are not abusing this scheme.

The other factor that members of the Committee may be interested in is that quite clearly over the last year, during the covid crisis, there have been a significant number of companies that have taken finance. Given that the Government, through the British Business Bank, have provided guarantees, there would be an impact on the taxpayer if those loans were not repaid and a claim for repayment were made. Again, that is relevant to consideration.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q Thank you for your evidence today, Mr Pegge. I understand that you helped to establish the covid-19 lending schemes. The Government have suggested that some companies have been dissolved to avoid paying back Government loans given as coronavirus support. Have you seen any evidence of that? If these measures go through, do you believe, from your experience and what you have seen, that the Insolvency Service is adequately resourced to deal with the expansion of powers it would have through the Bill?

Stephen Pegge: Yes, we have seen instances of this practice being used to try and avoid liability under bounce back loans. Back in May 2020, UK Finance with the British Business Bank established the bounce bank loan fraud collaboration group. It involves attendees from the Cabinet Office; CIFAS, the UK fraud prevention service; the Treasury; BEIS; and the National Investigation Service—NATIS. The aim is for intelligence to be shared, good practice to be developed and a threat log to be maintained and fed into the National Crime Agency and the National Economic Crime Centre. In fact, this was one of the practices which had been identified through that and has led to some efforts more recently to try to intervene and intercept these cases of dissolved companies involving Companies House and BEIS.

In the meantime, it is always possible that these cases may well have got through and there is some evidence—again, reported by the Insolvency Service—that there could be around 2,000 such cases which are dissolved and where currently the powers to investigate do not exist, so it is a real problem. If it were to become a more popular route for fraud, while there are mechanisms to deal with it and creditors can object when they get notice through alerts when these situations are gazetted, unscrupulous individuals can still get through and it is important that it is closed as a loophole.

As regards the resources of the Insolvency Service, we have all been conscious that, while the number of insolvencies has been low during a period of suspension and the generous support that has been provided to businesses through public agencies and the finance industry, we would expect that to rise significantly in this next period. There is already some evidence that it will do so. It is important that the Insolvency Service is resourced sufficiently to be able to deal with this. The evidence at the moment is that they have been involved in disqualification of directors in something like 1,000 or so cases across the last year, so it is quite possible that there might be a rise in the amount of work that they will need to do. We would certainly support any investigation into what additional resources might be necessary.

[Peter Grant]

Q Good morning, Mr Pegge. You have described the loophole of company directors being able to dissolve the company in order to avoid their liabilities. Another way that directors can act is to set up two or three companies, transfer all the assets out of a company, dissolve the company with the debts and retain the companies with the assets. Is that a loophole that will still exist, even if the Bill goes through? If that loophole continues, is there a danger that that then becomes the route of choice for dodgy directors to avoid their liabilities?

Stephen Pegge: I think the practice you are describing is sometimes called phoenixing—setting up a company in the same location with the same assets purporting to be the same business with the same directors. It has certainly been a matter of concern for some time. Putting in place these measures should help to discourage and mitigate the risks of phoenixing: I do not think it entirely removes it. As you say, it is possible, even without these additional powers of investigation, for that to take place, but certainly where there is evidence of abuse, the fact that the Insolvency Service will have powers under the discretion delegated by the Secretary of State to investigate the directors, take action against them in terms of disqualification more generally, and seek compensation from them personally for losses suffered will discourage the practice of phoenixing, which I know is a concern. As I say, I do not think that it entirely removes it, but it certainly will discourage it, and to some extent remove some of the possibilities of it taking place.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from David Kerr, a fellow at the Chartered Institute of Credit Management. We have until 11 for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record and make a few remarks about the Bill? Thank you.

David Kerr: Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to join the proceedings today. My name is David Kerr. I am a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Credit Management, the largest such body for credit managers. It was formed approximately 80 years ago and provides professional support, training and representation for credit managers and the creditor community.

The CICM contributed to the 2018 consultation and broadly supported the proposed measure in relation to director disqualification. Creditors have often raised concerns about directors leaving behind unpaid debts; whereas in a formal insolvency process, there will be some inquiry by an insolvency practitioner, when a company is dissolved ordinarily there is not. As we have heard, at present, the Insolvency Service will rarely look at those cases because it would potentially involve the cost of restoring a company to the register. The Bill therefore plugs an important gap, as others have commented.

It is probably important to make the point that this was first considered as a suitable measure and had support back in 2018, and while the urgency to bring it in now is understood, this measure is not solely for the purposes of chasing after directors and recouping funds in relation to covid debts but potentially has wider implications as well. There has been reference to the fact that 2,000 or 2,500 companies with unpaid bounce back loans may have been dissolved over the last year or so. I do not think there is any suggestion that every one of those will be investigated, but presumably the Insolvency Service will apply the same public interest criteria as it has hitherto in relation to insolvent companies. That would certainly give it the power to investigate those companies where directors have left behind debts, whether they are bank or Government debts or any other. That should act as a deterrent, one would hope, to directors using this route to avoid liabilities, and will perhaps also restore some confidence in the creditor community, provided that the action taken is publicised and therefore serves its purpose, both in the compensation orders that might be made and the deterrent factor. Broadly, the CICM supports the Bill. With that, I will be happy to take any questions that Committee members may have.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you for giving evidence today, Mr Kerr. You talked about restoring confidence to the creditor community. Would you say that there has been a loss of confidence in the creditor community? In relation to the 2,000 or 2,500 dissolved companies that you mentioned as having received covid-related loans, would you say that a high proportion of those may require investigation? Based on your experience of the creditor community, do you think that there was the means to repay those loans that those companies then tried to avoid?

David Kerr: In relation to confidence, I would not go as far as to say that there is a lack of confidence in the system, but in order to enhance confidence this is a suitable measure. It removes one source of frustration among creditors, which is where they can see directors who are not taking steps to put their companies through a formal insolvency process and instead are seeking to avoid debts by using the dissolution route.

In terms of numbers, I have not made any inquiry into the 2,000 to 2,500 companies that have been mentioned, but there has to be a sense of realism about the extent to which any Government agency can inquire into their circumstances. A percentage of them, based on creditor inquiries, complaints or other information that may come into the hands of the Insolvency Service, would trigger some investigation.

In relation to insolvent companies, although perhaps insolvency practitioners and creditors may be frustrated from time to time about the number of cases that result in disqualification proceedings, again there needs to be a sense of realism around the extent to which that can be done. That will happen in cases where, despite all the information, there is also a public interest test that is passed to pursue those actions.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q If a case passes the public interest test, do you think there should be the resources to deal with that? There is concern that the Insolvency Service may not have the resources, and therefore the ability to follow up on the expansion of powers in the Bill in the public interest. Has your experience been that the Insolvency Service has been able to resource any investigations that might be needed? What tools should the Government use to pursue directors of dissolved companies that they identify as culpable? Do you have a view on that?

David Kerr: In terms of resources and the ability to pursue all the cases that the Insolvency Service might wish to pursue, I guess that is probably a question for the Department. Not all the cases that are investigated will pass the public interest threshold. To the extent that there are cases that pass the test but cannot be pursued for resource reasons, I am sure the Insolvency Service would welcome any additional resources that can be made available to it. From the point of view of creditors, if actions are pursued in relation to covid-related debts and not others, perhaps the measure works against them a bit.

That comes to the second part of your question. There are two elements to this. First, there is the potential disqualification of individuals who are proven to have acted inappropriately. Secondly, and on the back of that to some extent, there is the possibility of compensation orders against those individuals, with a view to putting money back into the hands of creditors. Again, I am sure CICM creditors would wish that to be as effective for its members as for any Government debt.

[Jeff Smith]

Q Mr Kerr, you said that the CICM is broadly supportive. Do you have any particular concerns about the Bill? Is there anything that you think is missing from it, or could it be improved?

David Kerr: I think the point has been made about resource. I have heard comments from others on Second Reading and elsewhere about that. It would be unfortunate if the emphasis were entirely on dealing with bounce back loan fraud and if that took resources away from other directors’ conduct investigation cases. That point is not, I suppose, directly relevant to the provisions in the Bill; it is more a question of how it is implemented and taken forward. There have also been some comments about the retrospective element; the previous witness touched on that. I think these cases have to be taken within three years of the relevant date—the date of insolvency or the date of dissolution. I do not think the Department would be able to go back before 2018 in any event, and that was the date on which the consultation was conducted, so I suppose one could argue that directors have had notice of the intended provisions for the relevant period.

Those were probably the only points where there might be concerns to a limited extent, but generally I think the provision is a sensible one that gives the service powers that it does not have currently and which can only be helpful, I would have thought, to trust and confidence in the insolvency regime.

[Jeff Smith]

Q That is very helpful. On the three-year cut-off, are you concerned that that is likely to have implications on other investigations that the Insolvency Service carries out if it is not funded properly?

David Kerr: I was referring partly to the point that had been made by the Committee to the previous witness about whether there would be any issues around natural justice if the retrospective provisions pre-dated the consultation. I do not think that, in practice, that would happen. Going forward, the compensation laws that might be sought can be obtained after the disqualification order or undertaking, so there may be more than three years available to the service from the date of dissolution. There has to be a cut-off. I do not think there is any suggestion that the provisions of the disqualification have to be changed in that respect, merely that they would be applied to these circumstances. They have proved to be satisfactory since 1986 in relation to director disqualification in the insolvency proceedings, so I have no reason to believe that, going forward, those time limits will not be effective in relation to dissolved companies.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Are any sanctions that are currently available to use against directors who may have dissolved companies to avoid liabilities not being used as much as they could be?

David Kerr: None that I can think of immediately.

[Seema Malhotra]

If you change your mind you can always let us know.

[Peter Grant]

Q Good morning, Mr Kerr. May I come back to the retrospective nature of parts of the legislation? The three-year period will be permitted because that is what the current timescale is. Given the notorious complexity of a lot of financial misconduct cases and the fact that they are long drawn-out processes, is there an argument for that three-year period to be extended in cases where there is an indication that there is not only misconduct, but potentially criminal fraud? I am thinking about cases in which the potential fraud runs into the tens of millions of pounds. Is there an argument that in those cases, there should be no hiding place for criminals of that scale, simply because of the length of time they have managed to get away with it?

David Kerr: That is a fair point. I suppose the statute of limitations could be considered a relevant backstop, but I will come back to my previous point that we have a three-year limit in relation to investigations into directors’ conduct in insolvent situations, and that has been with us for 35 years. I have not heard any suggestion from the Insolvency Service that that has proved to be inadequate. This is effectively an extension of the same power into dissolved company circumstances. I have not seen or heard any evidence to suggest that it is an inadequate period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Q Finally, in terms of your role in credit management, what do you think this will do for the confidence of lenders and supply chains, in particular SMEs in those supply chains?

David Kerr: Generally, if the system is seen to be working well and those who abuse it are brought to account, then it helps enhance the confidence of those engaged in providing credit, whether it is through loans, trade credit or anything else. In that sense, it is a welcome provision that, if resourced and used as intended, should have the desired effect.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q To follow up on a couple of points, there have been critics of the proposals in this small piece of legislation. From your experience and that of your members, how long can it take for companies that have been dissolved to be restored to the register? In 2019, over half a million UK companies were dissolved but only 33 restored. In terms of the time it takes in practice, what could that look like?

David Kerr: I think the cost issue is the bigger disincentive for creditors that previously might have wanted to take steps to try and get somebody appointed to investigate. The service itself has made the point that there are legal costs and other costs associated with that process, and it would not be practical for creditors to mount that kind of action alone or, in many case, at all, given the amounts of their own debts.

The bigger disincentive is probably the cost and this avoids that. You are right in the sense that if there is a lengthy time process and if it takes several months, that eats into the three-year time limit that we have talked about, so that could be a problem. I think here, with this measure, we avoid that because the Department can have the ability to make appropriate inquiries and take action, without the need to go through that process.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q How much could it cost? What sort of range of costs could creditors see?

David Kerr: I do not have those figures in front of me but I have seen the fees involved. They amount to a few hundred pounds, but that does not include the cost of a solicitor to spend the time doing the necessary work. I would imagine that it would be a few hundred running into a thousand or more pounds to get a company restored, but I could not give you any exact figures.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q May I probe you a little further on the three year issue? You are right that within legislation there is provision for courts to make disqualification orders within three years after a company has been dissolved. This legislation extends that in line with that current time limit. In light of the fact that we have very unusual circumstances at the moment, with potentially thousands of companies that could require investigation, do you think that with that increased workload for the Insolvency Service, the question about available resources and the court backlogs, there could be a particular issue with directors effectively being culpable but the Government running out of time for courts to issue disqualification orders against them?

David Kerr: We might have touched on this slightly previously. First, there is no suggestion, as far as I am aware, that the whole of the 2,500 companies that have been mentioned would be the subject of an investigation. We are talking about dissolutions in the last 15 months or thereabouts. The time limit is relevant, obviously, because the service has to work to that, but the previous witness made the point, which we should bear in mind, that the majority of the cases that it takes do not necessarily involve court proceedings. In a lot of cases, having presented the evidence to the directors and with the threat of court proceedings available to the service if necessary, many are resolved by the director giving an undertaking, which has the same effect as an order, so a lot of them will not involve court proceedings and that helps the service to achieve what it is seeking to do within that timeframe. Many of the cases in these instances of dissolved companies, I imagine, would result similarly in a relatively high proportion of those being concluded by undertaking.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Mr Kerr, for your evidence. I have two questions. These measures clearly have widespread support. Can you give us a feel for the scale of the problem with dissolved companies? We have discussed quite a lot of different figures this morning, but do you feel this is a very significant problem, or a manageable problem, just to get some more idea anecdotally on that?

Secondly, clause 2 allows “easier investigation”. Can you give us some idea of the way in which the Bill improves that process of investigation?

David Kerr: I will deal with the second point first. We know that this provision means that we do not have to go through the process of restoring a company and instead the Department can commence an investigation in circumstances where it deems it appropriate without any barriers to doing that. In that sense it makes the process easier to commence the work it needs to do.

Many companies are dissolved every year, but I do not think there is any suggestion that all those, or even the majority, involve any misconduct by directors and by those who have opposed or supported the measure. I do not think there is any suggestion among those who proposed or supported the measure that that process should be removed as an option for companies in appropriate circumstances. The question is really how many of those represent some form of misconduct or where misconduct might be hidden, or where there is some abuse. I have not seen any statistics on that and do not know if anybody would know for certain. Again, it comes back to the point that the service would have the power to investigate in circumstances where something was brought to its attention, suggesting a need for investigation. In that sense, it is a welcome provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

Q Thank you, that is helpful. Just as a follow-up, are you concerned that there might be a focus on making use of these new powers at the expense of current work on other insolvent companies?

Dr Tribe: Not necessarily. Going back to my prioritisation point, the Insolvency Service obviously has finite resources that it needs to deploy in the best way possible—I suppose that is a problem for many public bodies— if other types of abuse manifest over time. The most obvious and recent problem is the bounce back loan phoenixism problem, but in due course other things might come about that require us to tinker with our corporate and insolvency law so that we have an effective system that maintains trust and confidence in it. What the Insolvency Service wants to do in terms of prioritising threats to the system will depend on its internal guidance.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Dr Tribe, I want to ask first whether you have a view about the existing sanctions that are available to use against directors who may be abusing the dissolution process—perhaps powers that are currently available but are not used as extensively as they might be. That is one of the challenges that critics of this legislation may make.

Secondly, are there any other more general problems with the dissolution of companies that are important to discuss at this time while changes are being made? Should changes be made to the eligibility criteria on dissolutions? What steps need to be taken prior to dissolution?

Dr Tribe: I will take the first question first. I think you are drawing attention to the compensation order regime, and you did so on Second Reading, too. There is some interesting research by Dr Williams at Cambridge in 2014, who looked—he sort of future-gazed—at how successful the compensation system might be. In that research, he highlighted that some of the directors in small closely held companies, which he argues the regime mainly targets, might end up being adjudicated bankrupt—they might go through the bankruptcy process, I should say—in due course. That would mean, of course, that any pursuit of those individuals would run into another layer of difficulty in trying to get to the value that might be there for the insolvent estate of the company or dissolved company that we are dealing with. His work future-gazed in that way at some of these issues.

It is true to say that, on the compensation regime, we saw one case in 2019, the Noble Vintners case, where insolvency and companies court Judge Prentis made a 15-year disqualification order. That is right at the top of what we call the Sevenoaks scale, after the case in which Lord Justice Dillon set out the various types of malpractice and where they fall on the scale, from two years up to 15. In the Noble Vintners case, it was the most unfit behaviour on the facts of that case that you could have —up at the 15-year period. Then, of course, that was followed by a compensation order that recouped for creditors just over half a million pounds—£559,000.

There has been some success with the compensation scheme. It is in its early days, in a certain sense. Although the reforms came in in 2015, there was a delay in implementation. You are right to say that we should pause for thought and mull over how effective that is. That takes us back to the resourcing and funding point, for one thing. Secondly, it takes us to the idea of that prioritisation agenda and how fruitful a claim that you are going to bring might be to get compensation. It is a power that exists and should exist. It goes some way—as you can see from the case of Noble Vintners—to getting value back into the insolvent estate for the creditors. It is a positive thing for creditors, and something that the disqualification regime did not do until that reform in 2015. Of course, it provided a protection mechanism, but in terms of getting value back into the estate, that is a good reform. That is your first question.

Your second question was on dissolution problems. I think you might be driving at the process of dissolution and how the registrar at Companies House deals with dissolution. After the directors have signed their form, made their declaration, paid the £10 and noted that there is going to be a striking off and that is published in the London Gazette, there is a period of two months where all the parties that should be informed—shareholders, creditors, employees and pension managers, for example—might know of this potential dissolution and should then, therefore, perhaps act on it as creditors. Some of the witnesses who have gone before me may have addressed this, particularly those from the credit community. In due course, as part of a wider analysis of what Companies House and its function is, that step in dissolution may be looked at.

As I said earlier, there are approximately half a million dissolutions per year, and many of those are for very good reasons in terms of, as I have said, maintaining the integrity of the register and getting rid of companies that have been through the insolvency processes but then get dissolved as well. The guidance for the Bill and some other sources note that among those half a million dissolutions, there could be about 5,000 that are potentially problematic that we would want the Insolvency Service to be able to investigate. Obviously, 5,000 is a lot more than the current levels of disqualification under the current provisions. Over the past decade or so, there have been about 1,200 a year, so you can see there is quite a significant upshift in the work that the Insolvency Service might have to do.

A Companies House review perhaps in due course mulling on what its function is—is it a regulator, is it a repository of information?—might look to dissolution, but in the short term I think you have this £17 billion to £26 billion problem, and there seems to be a loophole that needs to be closed.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Dr Tribe. Peter Grant next.

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

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition and to consider the contributions made by hon. Members. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for the meeting we had beforehand, in which we were able to discuss aspects of the Bill and issues that have been raised in the debate.

We have had some very positive and helpful contributions, including from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), with whom I have worked closely on mortgage prisoner issues and other areas of financial services regulation. He brought his characteristic clarity to the debate, raising issues including prosecutions for fraud and the resources that are necessary for us to be able to act. The speech by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) was so clear that it did not require an intervention, and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the important point that Northern Ireland businesses should remain on the same footing as those in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) was right about the debt burden that businesses are facing, which is one reason why the Opposition have called for a flexible debt repayment scheme based on what businesses earn. That continues to be an essential part of how the Government must support businesses going forward.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) outlined at the start, the Bill contains some positive measures and we support its going forward. However, we want it to deliver for businesses and local authorities and to bring justice to unscrupulous company directors, and it also needs to be workable for the Valuation Office Agency and the Insolvency Service. However, there are significant gaps in the detail, which must be addressed if the Bill is to achieve its aim.

Clause 1 rules out covid-related material changes in circumstances in relation to business rates appeals. We understand that assessing thousands of appeals would not be the best use of the Valuation Office Agency’s time when a full revaluation is due to take place in 2023. However, it is vital that this change is coupled with the £1.5 billion relief fund for businesses that have been badly affected by the pandemic but that have so far missed out on business rates reliefs—a point well argued by the Federation of Small Businesses, and I will come back to that point and to concerns that it may not cover everyone. The funding should also support businesses and supply chains that have been unfairly overlooked for so long.

Confirmation that the fund is an alternative to adjustments to rateable values as a result of material changes in circumstances appeals also provides much-needed certainty to local authorities. Since 2013 business rates revenue has formed an increasingly substantial part of local government revenue. While this reliance on business rates is imperfect and longer-term reform is needed, a large fluctuation in income at the tail end of the pandemic would be the last thing that local authorities need, and the Bill makes that less likely.

However, the lack of detail around the £1.5 billion fund is worrying. Since the figure was announced in March, businesses and local authorities have had no further detail on how the amount was calculated, how it will be allocated and who will be eligible, nor is there guidance on how it should be administered. Councils are expected to develop and set up local schemes to deliver this business grant relief, but they cannot start the process until they receive their individual allocations and until the Government publish national guidance setting out the parameters for the scheme.

We are concerned that the allocations will not begin until the Bill has passed through Parliament, meaning that payments are unlikely to be made until September at the earliest. Businesses and local authorities are united in crying out for clarity on the distribution process, for clear and straightforward award criteria and for simplicity and speed in getting the funding out. Waiting until September will mean that many businesses will not survive long enough to benefit, especially in the light of the decision to postpone the next phase of unlocking and the fact that economic measures have not been continuing in lockstep with public health restrictions.

The Government previously said that this grant-based approach was to ensure that relief could be awarded more quickly than if it was sought under a rating appeal, so again, why the delay? I reiterate that the Government must publish an early release of the funding allocations and eligibility criteria, and I urge the Government to work closely with local authorities and the Local Government Association to make sure that that guidance is as clear as possible.

There are also further questions to ask about how the Government calculated the figure of £1.5 billion. What assurances can they give that it will be sufficient to support the businesses that have struggled so much without rates relief during the pandemic? I would be grateful if the Minister could cover that in his closing remarks. While the £1.5 billion discretionary fund has been broadly welcomed, the ruling out of material changes in circumstances rate appeals, as he knows, will have come as a disappointment to many businesses. Have the Government made an assessment of how many are likely to have been affected by the closing off of this avenue and how much they would have been able to claim back otherwise? Did these sums inform the Government’s calculation of the £1.5 billion figure?

The Minister will also be aware of the concerns of airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester, and the need for a proper deal for aviation, which, so far, the Government have failed to bring forward. Heathrow has continued to pay its £120 million annual business rates bill in full despite the plummeting passenger numbers, so has the Minister undertaken an assessment of the impact that the Bill will have on the operation of pieces of national infrastructure such as airports? Was any consideration given to exempting them from the provisions?

I will make a few comments on the directors disqualification aspects of the Bill in clauses 2 and 3. It has long been known that a small number of directors of companies fraudulently use the dissolution process as a way of avoiding paying back loans, and this has become a particular concern with the covid-19 bounce back loans. With the dramatic increase in the number of company dissolutions this year compared with last year, there are fears that a minority of rogue directors have sought to use this mechanism to avoid repaying state-backed loans. It is therefore right that the Bill aims to close the dissolution loophole, allowing directors who have unscrupulously dissolved their companies to be punished and deterring others from doing this in the future.

Additionally, applying to court to have dissolved companies restored is time-consuming and costly to the public purse. It is right that the Bill removes this hurdle to tackling business corruption, but it is unfortunate that it comes now rather than three years ago, when a Government consultation, which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks, on the Insolvency Service’s powers saw the majority of respondents agree that there was a gap in powers in relation to directors of dissolved companies. If action had been taken more promptly, as I think the Minister would agree, the significant exploitation of the bounce back loan scheme may never have happened in this way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington raised Labour’s concerns about how additional investigations will be funded and the need for adequate resourcing of the VOA and the Insolvency Service. R3, the insolvency and restructuring trade body, has highlighted its members’ concerns that not all their reports to the Insolvency Service are acted on, even where serious breaches of the law are suspected, due to resourcing issues. So how do the Government intend to address this while also ensuring that the Insolvency Service stands ready to take on a potentially even bigger case load?

I would add that if resourcing delays result in investigations going beyond three years since the company is dissolved, and that consequently means that a Government run out of time to apply for a disqualification order against a culpable director, that would be an utterly unjust outcome and an incentive for the phoenixism that we want to see end. It would also surely fail the public interest test, so, finally, will the Minister explicitly clarify whether the Government plan to use compensation orders against disqualified directors? The Government’s approach to this must be made clear so that there is efficiency in returning funds to the public purse and other creditors can be monitored and evaluated properly.

I hope that the Government have been able to take note of the issues raised during this debate. Labour will keep pushing for these vital improvements and particularly for swift guidance and the release of the £1.5 billion relief fund. With many of the hardest-hit businesses yet again facing uncertainty following the extension of covid restrictions, we owe it to them to make this Bill genuinely helpful and not one more thing to worry about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

A lot of messages can go out and have gone out over the past year so that we can flex in our ability to work with businesses. I think I can boil down my relatively long job title to “Minister for unintended consequences”. We are always trying to make sure that we can flex and get clear messages out to businesses. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. We have heard a lot about the £1.5 billion and when the guidance will be out. Clearly that is dependent on the passage of this Bill, but we want to make sure that we can work with the LGA and councils to give the clearest guidance so that they can get the money out as quickly as possible. The argument made by Members on both sides of the House is countered by the fact that by not having to go through so many appeals we can speed up the process and get the money out within weeks rather than, in certain cases, if we had to go through the entire process, years. That is why we can provide certainty to local authorities, which rely on income from business rates to fund their vital local services. It is on that basis that the Public Accounts Committee has welcomed the approach taken by the Government in the Bill.

Members have raised questions relating to when ratepayers will be able to benefit from the £1.5 billion relief that was announced on 25 March. We will work with all areas of local government to deliver the new relief scheme as soon as possible, once the Bill is passed, so that local authorities can set up their local relief scheme. The allocation of the £1.5 billion among local authorities will be made according to which sectors have suffered most economically rather than on the basis of temporary falls in individual property values. That will ensure that the support is provided to businesses in the fastest and the fairest way possible.

[Seema Malhotra]

Does the Minister have any clarity at all on the timetable so that local authorities know what to expect and when?

[Paul Scully]

The answer is as soon as possible, once this Bill has passed. I am looking forward to working with the hon. Lady in Committee to make sure that we can work through this as quickly as possible. Clearly, work will be done in consultation and conversation with the LGA and local councils to ensure that we can get comprehensive guidance in place. That is how we have been working over the past 14 months with local authorities on the other grant schemes.

Let me briefly cover a couple of quick points. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) asked whether there will be a blanket ban on MCCs. I can absolutely confirm that there is no blanket ban. On airports, it is a core principle of the business rates system that a material change of circumstances should be used between rate revaluations, so the drop in demand for airports in light of the pandemic is exactly the sort of market-wide economic change affecting property values that can and should only be considered at revaluation. We have been supporting airports with their fixed costs over the past year from the airport and ground operations support scheme. In his recent Budget, the Chancellor announced a further six months of support up to the equivalent of their business rates liability for the first half of the 2021-22 financial year, subject to certain conditions, and a cap per claimant of £4 million.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way, but I will happily come back to the hon. Lady if I have not answered her question. I do want to get through a few areas.

Let me quickly turn to the disqualification of directors of dissolved companies. The issue of insolvency funding came up a few times. Clearly, we will be working with the Insolvency Service to ensure that it has the resources to do its job. It employs its finite resources to the maximum effect by prioritising cases in which there has been most harm to the public and the wider marketplace. Clearly, its resources are not limitless.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about insolvencies. Actually, the number of insolvencies has been at a 40-year low over the past few months because, effectively, in many areas, the economy has been held in stasis. That is why it is so important that, having put £352 billion-worth of support into the economy, we now have 352 billion reasons why we have to get the next bit right—why we have to help shape the recovery through these mitigations. We need to make sure that we continue to flex and continue to extend the support. That is why furlough carries on until September and why we have ensured that the winding-up proceedings have been extended for another nine months as well, so that we can get conversations going with landlords and tenants. It is so, so important to continue these measures.

I am glad that we have had broad support for the measures. In terms of compensation, directors can obviously be held personally liable for debt, and where there are breaches, there is disqualification.

Beauty and Wellbeing Sector Workforce

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetic and wellbeing, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins). I congratulate her on securing this debate and on her excellent opening speech on the lack of sufficient support for the beauty and wellbeing industry through the pandemic. She talked of the challenges it faced, many of which were echoed by other hon. Members who have spoken. I thank those who have made contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and others who contributed in discussions with us who were unable to speak today.

Many important points have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East spoke about the support provided by the Welsh Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North highlighted that this is a women-led sector—as well as, in many ways, a BAME-led sector—that employs women and serves men and women, young and old, across the country. It is one industry that serves almost everybody in the country at some point. She outlined the arguments, as others have done, for a reduction in VAT. That point was also made by former hairdresser Maria Evangelou in an article on PoliticsHome before the Budget this year.

The hon. Member for Strangford made a powerful point about the sector being highly skilled, but it is often not seen as such. That is the same stereotype we seem to apply in our minds to women-led sectors—to see them as low skilled—which is often connected to them being low paid. We have to check and challenge ourselves.

There is nothing greater than the contribution of lockdown to understanding that point. We saw the rise of lockdown haircuts—I, too, had to learn how to use a barber set—and we really appreciated how much skill goes into making us all look and feel as good as we can and should. The point was made that it is very important to appreciate the industry for its wider contribution to health and wellbeing. I hope that the House will take that on board and we will see that in future debates.

The contribution of the beauty and wellbeing sector must not be overlooked, as I think we have all come to feel that it has been during the last year by the Government. The sector contributes so much to our wellbeing, but it also contributes economically to our high streets, to our communities and to our economy. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South used the phrase the lifeblood of the high street, which is powerful and no understatement.

A report by Oxford Economics found that the beauty industry, which employs around 600,000 and has done so for some time, contributes about £28 billion to UK GDP annually and supports £7 billion in UK tax revenues. That is equivalent to the combined salaries of 250,000 nurses and midwives. The numbers speak for themselves. This is a vital industry for our country,

As we have heard, the sector—hairdressers, salons, barbers—makes a huge contribution to our personal wellbeing and mental health, as well as to our community spirit. If someone wants to know what is going on, or wants to share their stories, we should look at how much people do that at the hairdresser. We all have that experience of a moment away from frenetic, everyday life and I think we underestimate that social contribution.

During the pandemic, the industry has certainly been one of the most acutely hit by the restrictions, because it is a close-contact industry. The product is often a one-to-one service. One stylist does not serve 10 clients an hour, which might happen in a restaurant. That has been very much affected by social distancing. There are also the extra costs involved in maintaining safety for staff and customers.

There has been a sharp increase in permanent closures of hair and beauty businesses—around 20% have had to shut their doors so far. The numbers employed as hairdressers or in related services have also fallen by 20%. Of those, more than 60% were self-employed. We have heard in the debate about how people who are employed go on to be self-employed and then become owners of businesses and employers of others. They take the risks themselves, every step of the way. Many have experienced issues accessing the self-employment income support scheme. Being self-employed is often a journey to becoming an employer. We need to understand the issues that are faced in that context, too.

Looking ahead, the future remains far from certain for the industry, which is one reason why it is an important time to have this debate. I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East who said that six out of 10 salons started this year with no cash reserves, and many businesses are now described as acutely vulnerable to failure. Sixty-two per cent. of salon owners surveyed by the National Hair & Beauty Federation were not confident that they will remain solvent by the end of this year. There are also projections of further redundancies of over 15%.

Luke Hersheson, a globally renowned hairstylist backing the Save Our Salons campaign, said earlier this year:

“In March this year my salons will have been closed for 260 days out of 365… running a business for more than two thirds of a year with no income at all is incredibly challenging. When the tap is turned off salon businesses are still paying landlords, they’re still paying utility bills, insurance costs and subsidising furlough pay. It’s a huge strain on the entire industry.”

Although barbers, hairdressers and beauty salons have been allowed to open since 12 April, huge concerns remain about the gap between the revenues they can generate and their overheads. Our principle since the start of the pandemic has been that public health measures must be matched by fair economic measures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer once promised that he would do “whatever it takes”, and Labour’s position continues to be that these businesses must be supported so that they can recover and thrive after the pandemic.

The furlough scheme has helped so many, but we know that employers still have to pay national insurance contributions, and beauty companies have been paying full rent during lockdown, despite making little or no income. They still have fixed insurance costs and utility bills to pay while revenues are depressed.

I therefore ask the Minister why the Government will not delay the increased employer contribution to furlough, given that most of the 1.8 million people remaining on furlough are employed in sectors affected by the ongoing restrictions. On business rates relief, why will the Government not learn lessons from the Labour-led Welsh Government, who have given the vast majority of businesses 100% business rates relief for this financial year? Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of business rates costs for those in the hair and beauty industry? Finally, on debt repayment, where is the Government’s flexible plan to help businesses pay back their loans in a sensible way when they are generating profit and back on their feet?

There currently appears to be no credible strategy to ease the burden of debt that affects many businesses across the country, including in the beauty and wellbeing sector, which have racked up debts due to the long periods of closure. Forcing businesses to start making debt repayments—whether they are profitable or not—will squeeze the amount that they have to invest, to grow, or to take on new staff. For some, it could mean complete closure.

Campaigners say that their salons typically operate on a wafer-thin 2% to 5% profit margin in normal trading conditions. With social distancing requirements still in place, the average salon can often operate at only around 50% of their previous capacity. That is why Labour would give businesses flexibility to repay debt they have taken on during the crisis and link it to what they are making. Such measures would be invaluable to helping beauty businesses to survive.

There have been clear warning signs that the sector is in difficulties. Further closures would have a far greater impact on women’s income, as almost 90% of those employed in the industry are female. We also know that women have experienced a worse economic hit throughout the last year across all sectors. It is important to know from the Minister what further steps are being taken to ensure that those in the beauty sector do not continue to be disproportionately affected by the economic impact of this pandemic.

I pay tribute to the hair and beauty salons across our country. They play an enormous role, as has been mentioned, at the heart of our communities; I have seen this in my constituency of Feltham and Heston. I have also seen a large proportion of black and ethnic minority communities in my constituency affected—for example, BAME-led hairdressers such as His & Hers Beauty Salon run by Israr Rao and family that is at the heart of Hounslow West. When we go along the parade and talk to the shop owners, they come out and say how much they are still struggling. As we think about the economic recovery we face, that voice is still not heard sufficiently. I thank them for what they continue to do and for continuing to share their stories with us all.

It is right that there are new grants available as part of the restart grant scheme, but we have no idea how well these are supporting the beauty sector. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Department released a breakdown of the restart grant funding allocations and payments, but it does not hold sector-level data. As the Government point to the restart grants as a key support measure for the beauty industry, will the Minister now publish how much of the spending is reaching beauty and wellbeing businesses?

On skills, we know that there have been almost 30% fewer apprenticeship starts in hair and beauty in the first six months of this academic year, compared with the last. The Save Our Salons campaign group estimates that nearly four in five salons will not recruit any apprentices this year. If the salons struggle to take on new trainees and to hold on to staff who are leaving for other sectors, how will the Government ensure that they retain the skill sets needed to thrive in the future?

These businesses make a vital contribution to our economy. We know the Government’s approach to the crisis has failed to appreciate the importance of the sector and provide support to the extent needed. Businesses have done right by our country during the crisis and the Government must now do right by them. The health, wellbeing and beauty sector is a skilled and creative sector at the heart of our communities that absolutely deserves our support.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the chair, Sir Roger, and to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing today’s important debate, and I congratulate her and others, including the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and other members of the APPG, on the work that they are doing in support of this important sector.

Today’s debate is important because the beauty and wellbeing sector is so important. It is important because of its contribution to the economy, its pivotal role in high streets and communities in every corner of the UK, its showcasing of female entrepreneurship, as we have heard, and its role in improving our health and wellbeing. We have heard a little about high streets. We have to remember that high streets are an ecosystem. It is not just about retail, hospitality or the beauty and wellbeing sector; they all work together to make our high streets vibrant. It is important that we protect all of that as we reimagine the future of the high street.

I was keen, as we looked to the end of this lockdown and at the Prime Minister’s road map, that we should secure the reopening of the beauty and wellbeing sector at an earlier stage than last time. The sector was last to open after previous lockdowns, but among the first to open this time. That is testament to the appreciation that we were able to get across to the Government and the understanding that people’s wellbeing is so important, as well as the economic situation and the recovery. Today’s debate has highlighted the key role that the sector plays in our economic society and I hope it will go some way to strengthen the perception of the sector as highly skilled, entrepreneurial and accessible.

As we have heard, the personal care sector consists of over 280,000 businesses employing about 561,000 people and adding £21 billion to the economy. Over 95% of the businesses are small or medium sized. As for levelling up, 30% of all hair and beauty enterprises are based in local authorities that fall into the ninth and tenth deciles of multiple deprivation. Although its economic contribution is significant, what is arguably even more valuable is its impact on society and its role in communities. It plays a key role in supporting jobs, as was eloquently shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), especially jobs for women and young people. Some 82% of hair and beauty businesses are female owned, 60% of workers are self-employed and around 20% of hair and beauty workers are under the age of 25.

The pandemic has had a major impact on our mental health and we need to recognise how the sector can help the nation’s recovery by improving people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Whether it is feeling fresh after a new haircut, catching up with the local beauty therapist or getting a massage to relax, as the hon. Member for Swansea East said, the beauty and wellbeing sector provides the services needed to make people feel better.

The sector tells us that 68% of British adults who get their hair done professionally agree that having their hair done supports their mental health and wellbeing, and it is interesting to hear the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) tell us about how she had to bring out her hairdressing skills. There was no way that I was going to try that. I know that some people thought that I was taking my loyalty to our Prime Minister to the nth degree with the hair that I sometimes brandished in the Chamber, and I am glad that I have been able to get it cut since.

As we have heard, the sector also plays a key role for some people with serious medical needs, such as those with cancer. We therefore allowed treatments to continue during lockdown for those with health issues when they could not be deferred—for example, some people undergoing cancer treatment were able to visit spas and salons to receive specific treatment tailored to their comfort. Throughout the pandemic, I have worked really closely with the sector to understand the issues, so that I can best represent its interests within Government. Although it has always been represented in Government, we had a dedicated personal care sector support team back in January, and we look forward to working with organisations within the sector, the APPG and other interested parties in the coming months and years.

However, this has been a really tough year for personal care businesses, which have been closed at various points of the year and faced restrictions for the remainder. That is why, in recognition of the impact that the pandemic and the restrictions have had on the sector, we put in place an unprecedented package of support worth £382 million. That is the largest peacetime support package in history, and it included the job retention measures that we have talked about, support for the self-employed, access to the highest grants, the restart grants of up to £18,000 and loans. Indeed, the restart grants are a testament to the sector. Although it was able to restart at an early stage of this part of the road map, the restart grants are a testament to the extra costs that the sector had to bear by getting the PPE and other mitigation measures in place. As we have heard, we have also provided business rates relief and a moratorium on commercial rent evictions.

The business support programmes have helped many businesses and protected many jobs, but they cannot substitute for operating in an open market. The road map that I have talked about has always been cautious and gradual, but it has to be irreversible. To help the sector reopen, we developed guidance that could get it to reopen safely. Through compliance with that, it has been able to operate since 12 April. The road map laid out the timing for easing restrictions, and it is an approach that is being led by data, not dates. We have obviously had the announcement by the Prime Minister that we are taking a four-week pause at step 3, meaning that restrictions, including social distancing measures, are still in place. That will still have an impact on the beauty and wellbeing industry, because operating at reduced capacity is extremely challenging—not only for revenue, as we have heard, but by making certain roles in the workforce redundant—but by pausing step 3, we will further improve protection in the population and reduce the need for stringent restrictions to control the virus.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister has just mentioned the extension of the restrictions in line with the required public health measures, based on the data. Can he explain—the Government have not explained this—why furlough support has not been extended in line with public health measures? There seems to be a mismatch, and there is no explanation that does not leave the most vulnerable businesses continuing to pay and having a greater gap between their revenues and costs.

[Paul Scully]

I will cover support in a bit more detail in a few minutes. In his Budget, the Chancellor essentially went long by extending furlough to September, which allowed a cushion within the road map. It was about data, not dates, so it was never on the June date specifically—it was not before the June date. That is the essential thing, but I will cover support in a second, including the VAT request that has been made by number of hon. Members.

Over the next few weeks, we obviously want to ensure that the pause allows us to get more people vaccinated, but I hope that our unprecedented package of financial support will continue to go some way towards reducing the impact of the pause. As I say, we erred on the side of generosity, as well as going long, in the Budget in March, specifically to accommodate short delays to the road map. Most of the schemes do not end until September or after in order to provide continuity and certainty to businesses. It is fantastic that the sector is looking at ways to boost consumer confidence to maintain the high demand—for example, the Oh Hello Beauty campaign, which I have supported.

Until then, it is critical that we all continue to follow advice on safe behaviours, including social distancing, wearing a face covering when required, washing hands, and letting fresh air into indoor spaces. It is so important that hands, face, space and fresh air are really there, because we will not get to that July date to find that suddenly the baddie has been killed and it is the end of the film—roll credits. We will still be living with covid for some time, but we want to ensure that the social distancing measures can melt away, in order to allow capacity to increase in the personal care sector and others.

[Seema Malhotra]

May I probe the Minister a bit further? He will know that quarterly rents, for example, are due today and that other support measures, such as furlough, are being reduced from next week. From 1 July the level of grant will be reduced and businesses will have to pay a contribution to those wages. Those decisions were made assuming that lockdown measures would be lifted on 21 June. That has not happened, yet there has not been a corresponding change to the economic measures. Nothing that he has said so far has answered that question, which is a matter of real concern to employers across my constituency. I am sure that employers across the country have raised the same concern with their MP.

Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 General Committees

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray.

I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks on why we are using this measure to continue to support international trade while keeping in place measures to ensure product safety. I am particularly grateful for his remarks about some of the disclosure processes that have to be followed if there are concerns about products that may be entering the market.

Conformity assessment ensures that what is being supplied or placed on the market in Great Britain complies with regulations and meets the expectations specified or claimed. Conformity assessment includes activities such as testing, inspection and certification. As the Minister has laid out, those organisations that make these checks are called conformity assessment bodies, to which I shall refer from now on as CABs.

Mutual recognition agreements lay down conditions under which one party will accept conformity assessment results from testing, certification or inspection performed by the other party’s CABs or designated public authorities to show compliance with the first party’s requirements and vice versa. MRAs enable exporters to obtain conformity assessment certification from CABs in their home market, which is recognised then in the export market.

National rules on weights and measures can also form technical barriers to trade, as the Minister will know, and that is why the World Trade Organisation technical barriers to trade agreement aims to ensure that technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures are non-discriminatory and do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. At the same time, it recognises WTO members’ rights to implement measures to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of human health and safety or of the environment. The agreement strongly encourages members to base their measures on the international standards as a means to facilitate trade. Through transparency provisions, it also aims to enable a predictable trading environment. Parties to a trade agreement can agree to eliminate such barriers beyond what is applicable under the WTO rules.

The draft regulations cover UK MRAs with the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand, and the incorporated MRA chapters of UK agreements with Canada, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. As discussed, these agreements have similar or sometimes identical terms to those of the EU MRAs with these countries immediately before exit day. The regulations therefore give effect to the MRAs between the UK and certain third countries which have been agreed to provide continuity for businesses and consumers following the UK’s exit from the EU and the end of the transition period. May I ask the Minister why the regulations are coming now now? Obviously, the powers under the Trade Act 2021 have just commenced, but there is a question whether the instrument should have been passed before the respective MRAs were ratified. Perhaps the Minister will come back on that point.

The regulations ensure that specific products assessed by bodies in the countries recognised under the MRAs can be placed on the market, largely in Great Britain—they might also apply to Northern Ireland—and enable the Secretary of State to designate and monitor UK CABs to assess products against the other parties’ requirements.

The Minister mentioned that the instrument also implements annex 2-D to the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement by allowing single distilled shochu to be placed on the market in Great Britain in the new quantity of 900 ml, in addition to the existing quantities that are currently permitted.

The MRAs are signed with countries with which the European Union already has existing mutual recognition agreements and requires the UK to accept conformity assessment procedures performed and conformity assessment results issued by those bodies designated by the other country that is a signatory to the MRA.

I recognise that this is an important statutory instrument to provide both businesses and consumers with vital continuity and certainty—something even more important now as we look ahead to 21 June and our hopes for the beginning of the end of restrictions. In order to support businesses and provide that all-important continuity, Labour will be supporting this motion to implement rolled-over MRAs. However, there are several areas on which I would be grateful for some further clarity.

First, in relation to UK policy on conformity assessment and accreditation of the situation under EU law as it is still applied in Northern Ireland—as the Minister made reference to under certain regulations—a regulation sets out the requirements for the accreditation of market surveillance as it applies in EU law through the Northern Ireland protocol, and that continues to be the basis for accreditation policy. If in future there are any changes to UK policy, will that require an assessment of the implications of any trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? How is that being considered?

Secondly, regulation 5 in respect of registers of MRA bodies states that the Secretary of State may

“compile and maintain a register of…MRA bodies…their MRA body identification numbers…the activities for which they have been designated; and…any restriction on those activities”.

Can the Minister confirm where he has outlined or whether he will outline the activities for which the MRA bodies have been designated, and what restrictions there will be on those activities?

Thirdly, under regulation 6, the Secretary of State will also be able to designate a conformity assessment body to assess products against other countries’ requirements. What criteria will the Minister use to consider whether that body is capable of fulfilling those functions and to ensure that it meets the requirements of a designated body? Following that, how will the Secretary of State monitor each body and guarantee that they continue to have the necessary designated capability?

We know that in the EU and Australia MRAs, it is the responsibility of other signatory countries to monitor their own designated bodies, with general discussion set at joint committee level and action that may include joint participation in audits. If that is the case for the MRAs being discussed today, do the Government have any plans to conduct any audit? If they do not, does the Minister envisage any risks associated with simply letting other parties regulate those conformity assessment bodies? Could he clarify if any issues will arise in relation to the standard or speed of operations of conformity assessment bodies, and if there is an impact for British businesses seeking to export goods or services? If there are any issues, how will those issues will be handled?

On divergence, the UK MRAs replicate the previous EU MRAs in substance, with the only substantive divergence from the EU in the permission to allow the additional bottle size of single-distilled shochu. That poses a broader question of whether the UK could take a different approach to conformity assessment in the future.

From 1 January 2021, the UK introduced its own product safety mark, which broadly mirrors the EU’s CE mark. According to law firm Bird & Bird, the UKCA—UK conformity assessment—regime follows essentially the same principles as the previous CE marking regime, but with the safety and compliance standards, authorised representative/responsible person and notified body requirements all now being valid for the UK only. Despite being a UK ask, the EU-UK deal did not include an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessment, a crucial factor for the sale of a heavily regulated product. That means that most goods produced in the UK but requiring certification for sale in the EU will, I understand, have to go through a second conformity assessment for the EU to be eligible for export. That will result in extra costs to trade with our main trading partner.

A lack of an MRA is unusual for comparable deals as Japan, Canada and Switzerland all have MRAs with the EU, while even countries such as Australia and the US, which do not have a trade deal with the EU, have MRAs. Does the Minister not think it is ironic that, in not having an MRA, the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement seem to be worse than those of the infamous Australia-style deal? Outside the EU, we know that there are new regulatory barriers to trade. The EU Commission’s “Blue Guide” on product standards has a comprehensive overview of the system of mutual recognition and the functions of conformity assessment and accredited bodies. There is a system of notification in the EU by which national authorities notify the Commission and each other that a conformity assessment body has been designated to carry out conformity assessment according to harmonised EU rules. Will the UK continue to share information on CABs with the EU, or will that go through the public database of CABs to which the Minister referred, which the UK will put together?

In the absence of an MRA, local regulatory bodies cannot certify goods for sale in other countries. However, MRAs can help reduce some of the burden by avoiding duplicate product safety testing, for example. Consequently, to help businesses thrive, to do what we can to make trade easier and relieve additional barriers, Labour will support the draft statutory instrument today. I will be grateful to the Minister for his response on the points I have made. If he cannot answer in Committee, perhaps he will write to me afterwards.