Manufacturing and SMEs

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I hope this will be a worthwhile and interesting debate.

Today we could discuss Government support for small and medium-sized enterprises across all sectors: services, construction and, of course, manufacturing. Indeed, all sectors and industries will have many similar issues and problems—lending, taxation and employment law, to name but a few. There are certain issues, however, on which there are significant differences between the sectors. Indeed, even within sectors there may be different needs, requirements and problems that warrant different solutions. The reality is that it would be easy to have a debate on each sector, and probably many debates within each sector.

Today, however, I will concentrate on the manufacturing sector, the matters that apply to that sector and what the Government can do to support manufacturing, to enable the sector to grow and to ensure that it makes a larger contribution both to local economies across the country and to the national economy. I will address the help that the Government can give to all manufacturing businesses, including larger businesses that seek to develop new products or deal with EU regulation.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I obviously welcome Government support, which is very important, but companies can often help each other. Will the hon. Gentleman say a little about the supply chain, which is so vital to many small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly in Cumbria?

[John Stevenson]

I completely agree. Companies can help each other, particularly within the supply chain, but today’s debate is primarily about the Government’s role in helping to support businesses, both large and small.

The Government can help smaller enterprises that are seeking to expand and start-ups that need very basic advice on how to get going, and they must recognise that businesses of all sizes have their own individual roles to play. The Government have stated that they want to rebalance the economy—a laudable aim that is clearly supported across the House. Arguably, the Government want to go further and see growth in the country within an economy that is far more structurally balanced between the various sectors and which has a larger manufacturing sector, in particular.

Not only the economy but the country needs to be rebalanced. The country needs to move away from an over-reliance on a dominant financial services sector that is so overwhelmingly run from and centred on London. London has been, and is, a huge success, but there is a danger that it adversely affects the rest of the country. London dominates politics, the media, finance and business. It is almost overpowering, which can cause policy makers to forget or overlook the many other important contributors to our future prosperity.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People sometimes forget that in manufacturing there are many highly paid jobs—it is not a low-wage sector, as many think.

There are already signs that our economy is beginning to recover and that manufacturing is playing its part. In the food and drinks industry, exports are up to more than £12 billion; the manufacture of cars is now at its highest level since the 1970s; we are still a world player in pharmaceuticals; we are a leading nation in aviation; and this Monday there was the announcement of a significant rise in manufacturing activity—all welcome signs. It is easy, however, for parliamentarians and Ministers to get caught up in the larger, more glamorous companies with the sexier products such as cars and planes, rather than with the more mundane products, such as storage doors or food, even though those are equally important and often produced by SMEs.

In reality, SMEs are central to the future success of manufacturing, whether as part of a supply chain or as a stand-alone entity with a local or national market share, whether innovating and expanding alone or as part of the next national or international conglomerate. The purpose of today’s debate is to examine what Government can do to support, encourage and enhance the SME manufacturing sector. Government support, assistance and encouragement are critical to the success of our manufacturing sector. The debate is about a few specific issues whereby a role for Government can help businesses of varying sizes to prosper.

Other Members will have their own ideas, as will Government, lending being the obvious one—it has already been referred to, but I am avoiding lending today, because I am sure that others will touch on it. It is important that we all share ideas, to ensure maximum benefit for the manufacturing sector and the industry. It is a given that Government should create an environment in which all businesses can succeed: a tax regime that is friendly, rewarding and supportive; regulation that is sensible and proportionate and ensures a level playing field for businesses to work and compete on; and the confidence that it is important for Government to give to business, so that they are supportive and consistent, without any big surprises for industry.

I want to touch on four specific key areas; first is the definition of an SME. According to European Union law, the main factors determining company size are the number of employees, the turnover and the size of the balance sheet. Those factors can then be divided: micro-businesses have fewer than 10 employees, turnover of less than €2 million or a balance sheet of €2 million; small businesses have fewer than 50 employees, turnover of €10 million or a €10 million balance sheet; and medium-sized businesses have fewer than 250 employees, turnover of €50 million or a €50 million balance sheet.

There are, however, varying definitions in the UK, with one under the Companies Act 1985 and a different one under the business bank scheme. For the purposes of research and development schemes, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs defines SMEs in a different way again. In fact, depending on which definition is used, an SME can have anywhere between 10 and 500 employees or a turnover of between £1.7 million and £86 million.

The real issue is that the actual definition of an SME is not helpful. It would be far better to break the definition down into different sizes and types of businesses with their own reference. A clearer idea of exactly what type of businesses we are discussing is necessary, rather than lumping them all together.

More definitions would be beneficial and help to target support to the right businesses in the right circumstances. For the manufacturing sector, that would demonstrate and recognise the importance of companies and raise their profile, and identify a sector as important in its own right. Any definition needs to acknowledge that larger manufacturing companies often have little in common with smaller ones and they should therefore not necessarily be linked together.

Size and numbers matter: they have an impact on how businesses structure themselves, how they function and what type and level of support they seek. I certainly find it hard to equate a manufacturing company with a turnover of several million pounds and, for example, 200 employees, with a two-man engineering business with a turnover that does not even exceed the VAT threshold. A better group of definitions, certainly in the manufacturing sector, would help to simplify a business’s ability to access the correct support, help and guidance that it may be seeking. That might also help Government to steer a business of a particular size or industry towards the appropriate support.

My second issue is simply what support there is, and whether it reflects the actual needs of manufacturing. What can Government actually do? What is the real support and help that Government can give to the manufacturing sector? Clearly, small businesses have their own particular issues; large businesses that want to expand are likely to have different requirements and problems; and there are individuals who want to start their own small manufacturing businesses.

A significant number of issues therefore need to be addressed for businesses of different sizes and complexity within the manufacturing sector: strategic advice and business plans will vary depending on the size of the business; procurement, too, is different for small and large businesses; there is involvement with UKTI—UK Trade & Investment—for exporters; skills and qualifications depend on the needs of the different sizes of businesses; there is the issue of funding, grants, loans and, as mentioned, banking facilities; there is involvement with trade federations, because larger organisations invariably hold greater sway and influence, or relations with the chamber of commerce; there is legal, accountancy and intellectual property rights advice; there is dealing with relevant regulation, because cars, for example, are very different from the food industry; and, equally important but sometimes forgotten, there is succession planning.

I appreciate that the Government are helping where they can—the manufacturing advisory service is an example—but there needs to be accessibility and relevance to the manufacturer. A common complaint is that the Government do not understand the user, and that their support is inaccessible or inappropriate. I appreciate that the amount of such support will vary considerably.

Larger manufacturers will contact Ministers or officials and have an ongoing dialogue. They are more likely to work through the trade organisations, and many will have the resource to research matters or to take paid advice. To be honest, a small manufacturing business in Carlisle with five employees is unlikely to contact central Government, while a 200-employee company with a £30 million turnover may well do so. Often, however, the smaller businesses have the greater needs, but they find it more difficult to access such help from Government.

I acknowledge that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is having some success. The best example is the R and D credit uptake, which has been welcome and demonstrates a successful policy and implementation. My concern, however, is that much of the effort is not as effective as it could be for many businesses. AXA Business Insurance carried out a study in the UK suggesting that many are unaware of the initiatives designed to help them. Darrell Sansom, the managing director of AXA Business Insurance, said:

“The numbers of small businesses in the UK continue to climb rapidly, but it seems that many could be missing opportunities to help their business along the way through a lack of awareness of the support that may be available to them.”

That leads me on to my next two points. Talking about government can be slightly misleading. What do we actually mean? Which aspect of government is the most appropriate? Today, I am clearly ignoring the EU, but we still have central Government as well as local government. There are clear issues with central Government: where to go, who to talk to and what Government should be doing. What advice and level of support should they be giving? That applies equally to local government, which really does matter. In many respects, the local council matters more for small manufacturers and businesses than central Government.

[Sir Tony Cunningham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local government—local councils in particular—should be proactive with SMEs, rather than reactive? Instead of small businesses coming to the council and saying, “We have a problem or an issue”, councils should be going out and looking for ways in which to support local businesses.

[John Stevenson]

I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman and I, as fellow Cumbrians, agree that our local council does not do enough to support businesses locally or to take a proactive stance in Cumbria.

Is local government up to the job? What support or direction is it getting from central Government to ensure that it gives support to businesses, especially manufacturing ones? Councils can have a direct link to businesses through their everyday activities—planning, highways, environmental issues, health and safety, and, often, property ownership and rentals. What about other advice and help that local government could give, such as with business plans, legal and accountancy advice, finance, business structure, regulations and changes within an industry, and consumer and employment law? I have already commented on many other matters as well.

My experience of local government is that it is not nearly active enough in support of business. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Sir Tony Cunningham).

Farepak

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Although I am happy to have secured this debate, I am extremely unhappy that I felt compelled to apply for it. I had hoped that justice would have been done by now, and that Farepak customers and agents would have received at least some of their money back. However, five years from Farepak’s collapse, customers have not received a penny of the compensation due to them, and have not seen justice done. Those responsible have not been held to account. To add insult to injury, on the fifth anniversary of Farepak’s collapse, we have learned that not only has none of the £5.53 million compensation been paid, but the administrators, BDO, have admitted that the cost to date of winding up the company comes in at £8.2 million, which is far more than the compensation owed.

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Is it worth reminding people that the company knew when it took money from people that it was not able to provide the goods and services required, and that the people it defrauded could least afford to lose that money?

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes an incredibly valid point. The people involved had modest incomes, and could least afford to lose that money. They ended up paying twice for Christmas, or borrowing money. The whole matter was a scandal, and we are still no clearer about when it will be resolved. Farepak victims were ripped off twice: once when the company collapsed, and secondly by an establishment that has not protected them.

The history of Farepak’s collapse is well documented, and has been the subject of debates in the House, often initiated by Anne Snelgrove, the former Member for Swindon South, whom I applaud for her unstinting work in standing up for Farepak customers and employees. As this is only a half-hour debate, I will not rehearse the history, except to say that Farepak went bust on 13 October 2006, and the result was that the Christmas savings of around 120,000 people, in total about £38 million, were apparently lost. The money seemed to have been siphoned off to help to combat the debts of the parent company, European Home Retail but as my hon. Friend said, Farepak continued to collect money even when it knew that it had problems.

My inspiration for the debate is my constituent Deborah Harvey, who was a Farepak agent. The word tenacious does not come anywhere near doing her justice. Deb was an agent in Alway in Newport, and encouraged eight friends to spread the cost of Christmas by saving with Farepak with her. Like many agents, she was not motivated by self-interest; she was driven by wanting to see justice for the friends who saved with her because they knew her. They are owed a total of £2,100, and if they ever recoup any money, they will probably receive just £315.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She made her incredibly valuable point very well. She has done sterling work on the Farepak issue over the years, and I commend her for that.

My Farepak savers in Alway will probably receive a total of about £315. I acknowledge the organisers of the unfairpak website who keep the campaign going and are a source of information for Farepak victims in a sometimes unclear process.

Where are we, five years on? Have the directors of Farepak been brought to book? No. The Government, through the Insolvency Service, have finally applied to the courts to disqualify Sir Clive Thompson and eight other directors associated with the collapse of Farepak. Does the Minister not believe that the length of time that the directors have had to appeal while still holding office is incredible when innocent victims wait and wait? Perhaps he will tell us how long the Government expect the case to last? As a Farepak agent told me the other day, if she had stolen something, she would have to pay for what she had done wrong, and it would not take five years.

[Tony Cunningham]

Let us be honest. If someone broke into a house and stole such an amount of money, they would find themselves in prison. They would be jailed, never mind paying compensation, or justice. They would find themselves in prison, and that is where they should be.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was well made. Many victims have called for Sir Clive Thompson to have his knighthood removed if he loses the case, and perhaps the Minister will also address that point.

A survey posted on Twitter and the Farepak victims committee Facebook page reveals what Farepak victims think: 95% of the respondents thought that the liquidators had taken too long, and should have finished by now; 79% did not think that there are enough regulations to protect consumers from anything like the Farepak collapse happening again and 95% thought that all Christmas savings schemes should be tightly regulated. Many Farepak customers are upset about how the administrators, BDO, have handled the liquidation process. BDO struck an agreement with some of the ex-directors of Farepak to pay a total of £4 million in compensation, which is about 15p per pound owed. Not only are Farepak victims angry, as they should be, at receiving only 15p in the pound, they find it deeply unfair that as part of the deal the directors accept no liability for Farepak going bust. Will the Minister say whether that is common practice?

I am aware that some agents and customers received some money back in 2009 under a court order. That was a repayment to customers who had made payments as the company collapsed and which Farepak tried to put into trust accounts. Customers received some compensation from a response fund just after the company went bust, but as yet no customer has received any money via the administrators. BDO will argue that the reason is that it is still chasing, and that it is standard practice for administrators not to pay out any dividend until all avenues have been exhausted. However, as widely reported in the news last month, BDO has so far cost in excess of £8.2 million, which includes, for example, £50,000 for public relations work. That is an eye-watering sum, especially when BDO has managed to obtain only £5.5 million back for the victims. So far, the process hardly seems fair.

I understand that there is a possibility that ex-customers could receive less than 15p in the pound. If the administrators fail to recoup any more money from ongoing operations, they will take their costs from the moneys already recouped. I accept that the ongoing actions, if successful, could result in ex-customers receiving more money, but either way the administrators will accrue more and more costs, making customers even more resentful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a great pleasure to be able to respond to this debate, Mr Weir, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for bringing the matter to our attention. It is a matter of profound concern to the people involved. I think I reflect the Government’s perspective in adding my view that this was completely unacceptable. Many vulnerable people were associated with it and it has taken far too long to sort out. The steps taken to try to resolve it were far slower than both the people detrimentally affected and any reasonable observer might have anticipated, so I am extremely sympathetic to the case that the hon. Lady has made and to the circumstances of the people who were so badly affected. It is understandable that questions of the kind that she has posed are raised when so many people are affected. The insolvency is particularly sad, coming around a savings scheme—a club, if you like—that was tied to Christmas, as we now approach Christmas some years later. This is a poignant subject, and the emotions evident in the contributions made so far reflect the character of the matter with which we are dealing.

[Tony Cunningham]

Does the Minister accept that what makes the situation even worse—it is bad enough that it is Christmas and so on—is that the agents who were taking the money week after week were taking it from friends? The responsibility and the guilt that they feel, because they have let down their friends, are enormous.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is true. It is a good point. The hon. Gentleman made that point in an earlier intervention in a different form, and he is right. We think of the victims as the people whose money was contributed and lost, but the wider effect of the kind he described is also very sad, because people were acting in good faith, unaware of the likely consequences of the role that they played until it was too late to do anything about it. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the communal effect that it had on communities that are often tight-knit and where trust matters. This is a poignant matter that understandably stimulates heartfelt sentiments. I will try to deal factually with the circumstances, but it is hard to do that in the context, about which we feel deeply.

The matter started before we came to office, but it is not a partisan matter. Governments need to express a view and take appropriate action. The case began under the previous Government and, of course, because it has not yet been satisfactorily drawn to a conclusion in terms of the money received by the people concerned, it continues under this Government. However, neither Government could have intervened in the conduct of a particular insolvency, as that remains subject, as hon. Members will know, to the overall supervision of the court. Nevertheless, I can give some background as to where the Government stand at the moment.

On the issue that was raised about the directors, concern was rightly expressed about their position and their living up to their responsibilities. They are the people who controlled the company. The investigation that took place was complex. As the hon. Member for Newport East mentioned, it resulted in an application by the Business Secretary, in the High Court of Justice on 26 January this year, for disqualification orders to be made against the directors. It was made in the public interest on the ground that the conduct of each director makes him or her unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. It is, of course, a legal application. None the less, the fact that we made it reflects the Government’s view that this is a matter of profound concern. The individuals must be held responsible. As a result, opportunities to serve in a similar or indeed any business capacity should be limited. To say more about that at this stage would probably be improper, but the message that I have broadcast makes clear my views and those of the Government.

Education Funding

Tony Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

Only three weeks ago, the Prime Minister promised to do everything in his power to help and support the people of west Cumbria. Will the Secretary of State honour that commitment?

[Michael Gove]

I will do everything I can to help the people of west Cumbria, but I am afraid that, because financial close was not reached, the projects in his constituency will be stopped.