Tax Avoidance

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I agree and I shall come on to that a little later in my speech. We have had an ever-moving, ever-changing story about what the Government or members of the Government knew or did not know and the questions that they asked or did not ask about HSBC. That goes to my central issue of trust: trust is being undermined in our tax system, which absolutely depends on it.

The Government have tried to trumpet their record in recent days, but I am afraid that it is not the great source of pride that they have been trying to pretend it is. We know that the tax gap—that is, the difference between how much tax should be collected and how much is collected—rose from £31 billion in 2009-10 to £33 billion in 2011-12 and now to £34 billion in 2012-13, which is the information available for the latest year.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Alongside the appalling impact of the tax gap on our public services and the public finances, does my hon. Friend agree that it has a massive impact on the businesses that are playing by the rules and paying their taxes? To stand up for law-abiding businesses and say that everyone should pay their taxes is not an anti-business argument but a profoundly pro-business one.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. All businesses and all individual taxpayers need to know that the tax system is based on a level playing field, that nobody is getting away with gaming the system, and that when the system is being gamed we have robust measures to deal with it. That is profoundly pro-business and it is also in the interests of individual taxpayers, UK plc and our economy as a whole.

Taxation of Pensions Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson]

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon for Report stage and Third Reading, and I do not think I can quite do justice to the excitement and delight that I felt when I saw that the final stages were indeed to be taken straight after the autumn statement. I am sure that is a view shared by the Minister, who will also be grateful for this miraculous feat of scheduling. Given the vast numbers who have turned out to hear us this afternoon, the excitement is obviously broadly shared across the House.

This is a serious Bill, however, and we have serious matters to discuss this afternoon, so I will now turn to the content of new clauses 1 and 2. There is a certain symmetry to the scheduling of today’s proceedings, because the reforms in the Bill were first announced in the Budget statement and we are now discussing the Bill’s final stages alongside the autumn statement. We should be impressed—if that is the right word—by the speed with which the Government have rushed through these very significant pension reforms, although, given that we will now rush through something else even more quickly as a result of the autumn statement, perhaps I should have waited to hear that statement before writing that line in my script for this debate.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has congratulated the Government on the speed with which they have brought in these measures. She will be aware that I have secured an Adjournment debate later today on the unintended consequences that have been visited on some of my constituents as a result of previous hastily introduced pension legislation. The Government have attempted to undo that legislation but, unfortunately, without any great success. Will my hon. Friend therefore temper her praise and reflect on the fact that hastily introduced pension legislation can often have unintended consequences?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If I had continued my speech for another couple of lines, he would have understood that my praise was somewhat tongue in cheek, given what I am about to say about the haste with which the measures have been introduced, about the impact that that has had, and about the concerns expressed by the industry. I know that my hon. Friend is taking up these issues on behalf of his constituents and putting them forward very seriously. We still do not know all the unintended consequences that will result from this Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill, which has now gone through the House, and that is one reason why I want to speak to the new clauses today.

At least one of the new clauses will seem familiar to those who had the pleasure, as I did, of serving on the Bill Committee. We have been consistent in our approach to the reforms. We have always said that we supported the principles of greater freedom and choice, but only when that leads to better outcomes for consumers. That is why we have consistently called on the Government to give us evidence that they have undertaken the appropriate assessment and analysis of the impact and potential consequences of the reforms. This also relates to what my hon. Friend has just said. For as long as we have pressed the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to provide that information, he has politely but firmly refused to do so. We on this side of the House are nothing if not persistent, however, and it would be remiss of us not to make one final attempt to bring the Government round to our way of thinking and to persuade them to accept our new clauses.

In a moment, I shall ask the Minister some questions on the figures that have been published today, but first I want to refer to some of the points that have been made about the speed with which the Bill has been taken through Parliament. Comments have been made in briefings and submitted in evidence as we have approached Third Reading. For example, the Association of British Insurers has stated that

“it is becoming increasingly clear that the first phase of the introduction of these reforms will be delivered in a period of regulatory uncertainty.”

The impact of that will be felt by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). The ABI goes on to say:

“There is still a lack of clarity about what is expected of anyone offering retirement products from next April.”

I will come back to those points in a moment. The Bill has had thorough scrutiny, but a number of issues remain that we wish to pursue.

New clause 1 calls for a Treasury review within two years of the reforms coming into force on 6 April 2015, detailing the impact of the Bill on Government revenues, with particular reference to opportunities for tax avoidance and national insurance contributions avoidance. In Committee, we tried to get more details and figures, and the comments of John Greenwood and others were often quoted, particularly those relating to concerns that the Bill could allow individuals to divert large sums into their pensions through salary sacrifice. Those individuals would then be able to take as much as they wished from that pension in the following year, as 25% would be tax- free and the rest would be charged at their marginal rate, with no money deducted through national insurance contributions. Although the introduction of the money purchase annual allowance rules is supposed to prevent that, the reduced £10,000 limit is activated only after the pension has been flexibly accessed for the first time.

The Association of Accounting Technicians has raised concerns about this, saying:

“In the first year, before the £40,000 allowance is lost, individuals over the age of 55 will still have the scope to save tax and NI on the full £40,000, provided they have the necessary earnings, less their existing pension contributions. Where an individual flushes (passes) an extra £30,000 through pension rather than drawing salary they will achieve a saving of £3,600 in employee NI, more than £1,500 in income tax and, also, £4,140 in employer NI (13.8%) in the first year. A total loss to the public purse of £9,240. The “Freedom and choice in pensions” rules mean this money can be withdrawn immediately if an individual is over 55. This fact means that there will not be clear distinction between salary and pension for this age group.”

I have some questions for the Minister about that. Does he agree that the Bill, as it stands, would afford additional scope for tax avoidance of the type outlined? I know we have discussed this matter in Committee, but it is important to probe it until the last possible moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robinson]

I am pleased to take part in the Report stage of a Bill that we discussed at some length in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) will know. She has led for us throughout with such conscientiousness and command of detail that we probably do not need to labour further the points that we have pressed on the Minister. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has added to our thinking on new clause 2 by suggesting that the effect on the housing market, in particular, should be kept under strict review.

I fear that the Minister is not going to accept either new clause, so I ask him to make a clear statement on the areas where the Bill is likely to have an impact, with potentially severe economic consequences. In the light of the Chancellor’s autumn statement earlier today, we see just how severe the problems on the deficit and Government borrowing are. If the Bill is going to have a further major impact in terms of tax receipts—which are already disappointingly low, as the Minister himself must recognise, being very well acquainted with that area of the Treasury’s affairs—it needs to be regularly reviewed.

In pushing for the changes we propose, we are merely doing what any responsible Opposition may do. I am surprised that the Minister is so reticent about sharing these important matters with the House. As the hon. Member for Arfon said, the consequences in the housing market could be quite severe, particularly in the buy-to-rent sector. In Committee, I mentioned to him anecdotal information that I had received from the housing market in strongly Conservative areas such as Buckinghamshire. House prices are already rising, and this aspect needs to be reviewed.

The point that we made very strongly throughout the Committee stage is that this is an unknown area where there is a fear of scams and abuses emerging—mis-selling and such things that have characterised so much of the industry in the past. Even now, we are still clearing up some of the mess from those previous schemes that went so horribly wrong. Not only that, but looking at this from the point of view of economic management, big sums are involved. I have talked to pension fund and investment fund managers, and they are looking forward to it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has made clear, we welcome the Bill. We are not opposed to it in principle, but we want to make sure that it has the effects that are foreseen as regards flexibility and making greater independence available to very many people throughout the country. It is in the spirit of not just avoiding abuses, but ensuring that the Bill does not become counter-productive or have exactly the detrimental consequences that other Bills of this kind have had that we urge the Minister to accept, even at this late stage, both new clause 1 and new clause 2. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to repeat that point on Report.

[Toby Perkins]

I do not intend to detain the House unduly, but I want to speak briefly in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I also do not intend to give too much advance notice of my Adjournment debate, which I will have the pleasure of holding later and to which I know that the House is looking forward with considerable interest.

My hon. Friend made an important point about the haste with which some of the changes have been introduced and the impact that that can have. The Government may be entirely well meaning, but such changes can have unintended consequences, and I shall refer to some of them in more detail later.

If I had been contacted by my constituents and had a response from the Minister a few weeks or months earlier, there might have been an appropriate opportunity to propose that the issue was looked into in relation to the Bill, but perhaps there will be an opportunity to consider such issues in the other place.

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who speaks with tremendous knowledge on these issues. He was absolutely right to focus on the way in which some industries operated in the past, and the extent to which the financial services industry had some very negative selling practices back in the deregulatory period of the 1980s. I am pleased that the industry, with Government assistance, has very much got its house in order.

We would be well advised to think about the impact of the changes on the professionalism of very important industries such as financial services. If decisions are not taken in professional enough a way, they can have massive effects on people at the time in their life when they take their pension. Back in the 1980s, there was a huge explosion of private pensions, with people—mineworkers or teachers—advised to give up their pensions. They were told, “No, if you give up your pension, you can opt in to one of these private schemes, with 15% growth every year.” There was a huge mis-selling scandal.

I previously worked—briefly, and largely unheralded—in the financial services industry. I was not necessarily particularly suited for the job, which highlights a point about people being invited into the industry. They were dragged into it on the basis of knowing friends that they could go and sell pensions to. People with very little knowledge came into the industry. Their business plan was based on phoning all their friends and relatives to encourage them to give up their pensions in reliable public sector or other schemes and to go in to private schemes. There was of course a huge explosion, and many of the people in the schemes were seen to have been given very poor advice.

We recognise what the Government are attempting to achieve, and we support their aims of having greater flexibility for the industry, allowing people to be put back in charge of their investment and ensuring that they have the freedom to decide what to do with the money that they have saved. However, we are also aware of why the annuities method of accessing pensions that people had invested in was introduced. We as a society decided that, in an age when people were living longer and longer, we wanted people to make provision for themselves and, having done so, to buy something that provided a regular income that they could rely on.

If we have a scheme in which people decide what to invest their pension funds in, but, with the best of intentions, those investments go wrong, the people who we thought had provided for themselves in later life will come back to the state and say, “Unfortunately, the investments that I made with my pension pot have gone wrong and I have run out of money.” That will have an impact on the Government. We recognise what the Government are attempting to achieve, but it would be sensible to have a review of how it is working, the impact of the changes on the behaviour of investors, the impact on Government revenues, the impact on the broader economy, and what behaviours are being encouraged and introduced by the changes.

[Hywel Williams]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is also a reputational danger for the industry in general and for the entire system of retirement pensions if people who make honest and sincere investments find that the returns are non-existent or that the investment itself disappears, and find themselves not being at leisure in their 70s, but working, like people I know.

[Toby Perkins]

Absolutely; the hon. Gentleman is right. There was a huge rush of those issues coming to light at the back end of the last century, when people who believed that they had saved into corporate pensions found that the company had disappeared and so had their pension.

When we are debating these issues and supporting the Government in this important initiative, we must be conscious that it must not end up with people effectively gambling with the income that they will rely on, without being aware of the risks. It is important that protections are in place to ensure that when people make such decisions, they have the information and know what they are letting themselves in for. It must be clear not only what impact it will have on them and their future, but what impact it will have on Government resources and revenues.

The FCA risk outlook of 2014 stated:

“Retirement income products and distribution may deliver poor consumer outcomes”.

That means that the Government recognise the dangers that we are highlighting, which adds more weight to the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for a review of the impact on Government revenue and a review of who is affected, with a

“distributional impact, by income decile of the population”.

The other thing that we must all be conscious of is that this change must not result in an industry that services only the very rich. Financial advice is important. If it becomes the preserve of the very rich, many people will be left out of the market, especially the self-employed, who often see their business as their pension and so never go down the route of choosing financial services products.

In supporting my hon. Friend’s call for a review of the impact of the changes, I wanted to flag up the debate that we will be having later and to put it in the context of the taxation of pensions. I have secured today’s Adjournment debate on the impact of such measures on public sector workers who transferred to the private sector when their public sector job was transferred. They are protected under transfer of undertakings protocols. However, as many staff at CSC in Chesterfield who previously worked for Royal Mail discovered, when they were made redundant, the changes hastily introduced by the Government in 2012-13 meant that although they left their pension with Royal Mail when they were transferred and opened a new pension with CSC, that new pension was treated as a second pension. As far as they were concerned, they sat in the same desks and did the same job. The name above the door may have changed from Royal Mail to CSC—although in this case it did not in practical terms—but those staff were classed as having two different jobs and therefore two different pensions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important and relevant point. We are putting power in the hands of individuals to decide what they do with their retirement pension pot. We are also ensuring—I shall touch on this in a moment—that guidance is available. It may well be that after careful consideration, people conclude that they do want to assist a family member to get into the housing market. That is a choice for them, and I do not think that we here should necessarily condemn such a choice: it might be precisely the right thing for people to do for them and their family.

As part of the new regulatory framework for financial services, we have introduced the Financial Policy Committee, as I was saying, and we have given the FPC strong powers to tackle any threat to financial stability, including a broad power of recommendation, which it used in June 2014 to address risks stemming from mortgage lending and sectoral capital requirements that apply to residential mortgage lending. The Government have consulted on granting the FPC powers of direction over macro-prudential tools for the housing market and aim to legislate for these new powers next year. In line with the new regulatory framework, the FPC is best placed to monitor the housing market and take action, if required.

Let me pick some other points raised in the debate, most of which it would be fair to say were familiar. I was asked whether people would understand the tax consequences involved. The guidance will help consumers to understand the tax implications of their choice of pension, and in addition, the Financial Conduct Authority has published near final rules that will require providers to supply their customers with a description of the possible tax implications when they apply to access their pension funds.

On extortionate draw-down charges, the FCA’s retirement income market study will be published shortly. In June, the FCA expanded the scope of this study to include consideration of products in the new flexible landscape and to identify any competition risks and potential consumer detriment. The guidance guarantee will be relevant here.

It was suggested that people might be charged too much tax without realising it. As with all PAYE income, the tax position will be reconciled at the end of the tax year. All the income received by an individual that was taxed under PAYE will be brought together, and the correct tax will then be calculated. If there was an overpayment, the extra amount will be repaid, and if there was an underpayment, HMRC will contact the individual. People will not be subject to self-assessment solely because they have flexibly accessed their pensions, nor will they have to claim a refund in order to receive it.

I have already touched on the matter of how the new flexibilities will affect entitlements to benefits, but let me say now that the Government want to ensure that the choice that people make between taking their pensions as income—that is, purchasing an annuity and keeping more of their pension as capital—and drawing it down periodically, for example through a drawdown product, will not have a significant impact on how they are assessed for social care support and how their means are assessed for social security purposes. New regulations and statutory guidance on the Care Act 2014, which were published on 23 October, include details about the charging rules for care and support.

Today we announced a change in the rules for people above pension credit qualifying age who claim means-tested benefits. The notional income amount applied to pension pots that have not been used to purchase an annuity will be reduced from 150% to 100% of the income of an equivalent annuity—or the actual income taken, if that is higher—in line with the rules for care and support.

Let me now deal with an issue that was raised by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). I shall not try to anticipate the response that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will make to the Adjournment debate that the hon. Gentleman will initiate later, but I can say that these matters are not being rushed. We have consulted extensively on the implementation of the policy, and there is widespread support for the changes. We are working closely with industry to ensure that it is ready for April 2015, and have been doing so since the announcement was made. We are making good progress in delivering the changes that are needed through both our Bills.

[Toby Perkins]

I realise that the Minister does not want to predict the outcome of a debate to which we all look forward with such interest, but will he tell us whether the taxation of pensions element of that debate could be considered during further stages of the Bill’s progress?

[Mr Gauke]

We are reaching the end of the Commons process, or at least I hope we are. We believe that the Bill delivers the reforms that are necessary to implement the policy announcement that the Chancellor made in the last Budget. We believe that these are good reforms, and we believe that the new flexibility in the pensions system is to be welcomed and will encourage greater savings. Let me add that some perceive Opposition Members’ desire for a review as the precursor of a possible reversal of these changes by the Opposition, were they to be in government. I would not like that to happen, and their proposals create a degree of uncertainty.

I hope that, in the light of the explanations that I have given to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, she will not press her new clause to a Division, but if she does, I will certainly oppose it.

Annual Pension Allowance (Transferred Workers)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a matter of significant importance to employees in my constituency who were transferred out of Royal Mail to the IT services provider Computer Sciences Corporation and, I suspect, to many other employees who were transferred out of the public sector. Changes to lump sum pension allowances introduced by the Chancellor in his 2013 Budget have had a catastrophic impact on my constituents’ pension pots and created an accidental discrimination that fits neither the principles nor the spirit of the transfer of undertakings protocol, otherwise known as TUPE.

The aim of this debate is to follow up letters I have exchanged with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I feel that his replies thus far have failed to grasp the full unfairness of the situation or to offer appropriate remedy. I aim to show the House that, as the mechanism currently stands, there is gross unfairness towards workers who have been transferred out of public sector pension schemes. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, can explain to my constituents why they have been hit with such a significant tax bill, often on revenues that they have not even yet received, and what further steps the Government can take to ensure that former public sector workers are not unfairly disadvantaged by an arbitrary decision they made several years ago.

Royal Mail has had a long tradition in my constituency. Back in the 1960s, as part of a move to get Government organisations out into the provinces, Royal Mail moved thousands of head office staff up to Chesterfield. It brought with it a Barbara Hepworth statue and a welcome number of high-skilled and pretty well-paid jobs. Royal Mail has been a key employer in the town ever since. The Loundsley Green housing estate was built specifically to house the influx of new workers. However, while it remains an important employer today, many staff have subsequently been transferred out and do the same or similar jobs working on the Royal Mail account on behalf of private outsourcing companies.

The workers whose case I am raising today were transferred from Royal Mail to the IT firm Computer Sciences Corporation Ltd—CSC—in 2003 as part of a contract to outsource all Royal Mail’s IT to the company and retain all the 1,713 staff under the TUPE protocol. At that time, employees had a choice either to leave pension contributions that they had already paid within the Royal Mail pension and start a new separate corporate pension with future contributions with their new employer, or to transfer all their contributions to a new CSC pension and subsequently pay into that. The only choice that appeared to face workers was whether their pension contributions would be safer in one scheme or another and where they would be most likely to get a decent return on the pension contributions to which they were entitled.

Many workers—it is not clear how many—elected to keep their pre-2003 contributions within the Royal Mail scheme and open a new CSC pension with future contributions. However, a combination of the changes to the allowance regime—which was dramatically reduced in October 2010 and further reduced in subsequent Budgets—enforcement of TUPE rights, previous changes made to the allowances on what are perceived to be temporary pensions, and Treasury guidance on what constitutes a temporary pension has led to huge costs being applied to workers made redundant from CSC in recent years.

Revelations in Computerweekly.com about the efforts that CSC has made to stem losses on its involvement with the Royal Mail account suggest that 63% of the staff who originally transferred from Royal Mail into CSC have now been cut. Although exact numbers are not known, it is believed that the majority have left the business completely. That suggests that some 1,082 employees could be affected in this case alone. Some of those will have chosen to move into the CSC pension scheme and will not be affected in the same way.

There appear to be two different ways in which workers have been disadvantaged. First, I would like to raise the case of Michael Randell. Michael had worked for Royal Mail Group for well over 25 years, during which he had saved for his retirement by contributing into the pension scheme. Mr Randell is now 53. Under the terms of his employment, had he remained a Royal Mail employee he would have been entitled to take his pension under early retirement provision if he had left the firm over the age of 50. Therefore, in order to comply with TUPE, CSC arranged to make a notional payment to source an equivalent pension value until he is 60, when he will move on to the Royal Mail pension. Mr Randell’s usual pension contributions are less than £5,000 per year, but when he is made redundant, this one-off notional payment—which would effectively buy an annuity for the next seven years to comply with TUPE regulations, from CSC’s perspective—is classed by the Treasury as a one-year contribution to a second, in this case temporary, pension. In practical terms, it is not a second pension—it is a continuation of the first pension that he has from doing the same job with two separate employers.

At a time when the Government rightly ask employees to put money aside to save for themselves in retirement and to plan ahead, this group of workers, who did precisely that, are being caused huge problems because, back in 2003, they made a decision about which pension scheme they should choose to contribute to, yet they could not possibly be expected to have had foresight as to the implications of that choice.

The intention of the Government’s proposals was to target richer pensioners. In 2010, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) announced:

“It will be targeted at those who make the most significant pension savings. An annual allowance of £50,000 will affect 100,000 pension savers—80% of those will have incomes over £100,000.”

Unfortunately, as Mr Randell’s case has shown, the policy has also hit those on lower incomes with reasonable pensions. The Government have accepted the possibility that individuals on lower incomes could in exceptional circumstances face a sharp increase in the tax charged on their pension, but as I have demonstrated, such moderate language does not reflect the significant numbers that might be affected or the size of the impact on their pension planning.

The second example involves the group of CSC workers who were made redundant in 2012. That was part of a global redundancy programme in which CSC laid off 640 workers. The workers had their CSC pensions taxed as second pensions, whereas if, back in 2003, they had decided to transfer their pensions into the CSC pension scheme, it would all have been seen as the same scheme.

CSC attempted to honour its commitments to its employees by ensuring that they still received as employees of CSC what they would have been entitled to if they had remained with Royal Mail, but that led to those individuals being treated as though they had two separate pensions, although in practice they have been employed in the same job throughout that period. The issue is about how public sector workers whose employer changes, even though their job does not change, are seen as having two different jobs. Although TUPE should protect them from being worse off as a result, in practice they are not protected.

The Treasury viewed the money as having been paid all at once, even though it was received by the workers annually over many years, and the way in which workers’ pensions are taxed by the Treasury meant that people on decent but not in any sense exceptional salaries faced huge tax bills—more than £200,000 in one case that I have heard of—on income that they had not necessarily received.

It is too early to know the total number of people who will be sucked into this unfortunate state of affairs, but taking into account how many have moved from the public sector to the private sector, it might be very high. That raises important questions about the extent to which the Government fully understood the impact of the changes they made to the annual pension allowance when they made them.

The Treasury document, “Restricting pensions tax relief through existing allowances: a summary of the discussion document responses”, revealed:

“The nature of DB schemes means that some individuals on moderate incomes could exceed the AA—particularly where they are in final salary DB schemes and see spikes in pension accrual… The Government is committed to managing impacts on these individuals as far as possible.”

One of these solutions was to allow individuals

“to carry-forward unused annual allowance from up to three previous years, to offset against contributions in excess of the AA in a single year.”

However, the Government recognised that in exceptional cases such mitigation would not be sufficient. The Financial Secretary made that clear in correspondence with me. He said at the time that the Government had consulted on options to give individuals and schemes more flexibility over the payment of charges. On 3 March 2011, the Government announced that individuals with annual allowance charges of more than £2,000 would be able to elect for the full liability to be met from their pension benefit. That obviously made it easier in the short term, but in practice it still means that individuals will lose out, as they receive a lower pension than they otherwise would have done. The fact that they are still taking money out of their future earnings to pay a bill does not seem to fit with the principle of the Government’s measures.

It is ironic that this debate is taking place on the day that the House has again debated the Taxation of Pensions Bill, because the Bill was a missed opportunity to address the plight of TUPE-ed public sector workers who face the unfairness that I have highlighted. The Government have thus far fallen short of the action that is required. The measures that have been put in place are compensatory, but they do not compensate fully. They mean that the workers of CSC and probably many other former public sector workers will lose out on the pension to which they should have been entitled.

The further stages of the Taxation of Pensions Bill provide an opportunity to establish cross-party support for further analysing the effect that pension changes have had on CSC workers, and for setting out a framework in which the unfair nature of the situation can be tackled. I hope that that might happen in another place, as I suggested on Report. The Government’s approach to reforming pensions tax relief was supposed to be based on ensuring that fairness was maintained, but it appears that a loophole has developed that could, in some cases, lead to people losing thousands from their pension.

I would be grateful if the Minister recognised that the measures to alleviate the problem are sticking plasters that aim to provide compensation or to reduce the damage of the proposals, and that what is required is for people who are perceived to have had two jobs, when in reality they had one, not to have to choose to pay a tax bill, which they would not have faced if they were still in the public sector, either all at once or from their future pension income. I look forward to hearing her response on this important issue. I recognise, in bringing this matter to the House, that the Government’s intentions were positive. However, when unintended consequences arise, it is our responsibility to evaluate them and, hopefully, to work together to deliver a fairer outcome for our constituents.

Eid and Diwali (Public Holidays)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to making Eid and Diwali public holidays.

Mr Bayley, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. Jai Shree Krishna, Salaam Alaikum, Namaste and Shalom!

This e-petition was not my idea and I cannot claim ownership of it. However, I will explain why I have agreed to be the Member who sponsors it and makes sure that it is debated in the Houses of Parliament. I am the MP for Harrow East, an area of enormous diversity of culture and religion—in fact, I would claim that it is the most diverse constituency anywhere in the country, containing people of all religions and from every country on the planet.

I celebrate all the religious festivals in a number of ways. I join my Hindu friends at all their various festivals, including Diwali—or, to use the term more appropriate for my constituency, Deepavali. I join my Muslim friends at Eid, my Jewish friends for Rash Hashanah and Hanukkah, and my Christian friends for Christmas, Easter and other celebrations. I join my Sikh friends for Vaisakhi and my Chinese friends for Chinese new year. I also celebrate many other occasions throughout the year with all kinds of groups within my constituency alone.

I myself am a committed Christian, but it is probably fair to say that I am a Chrinjew—a Christian with Jewish roots and a deeply embedded friendship with the Hindu religion. I believe that Harrow East is a beacon of everything that is positive about the enormous cultural diversity of London and the rest of this country. Being the MP for the area has given me a broad insight into the question of holiday observances. When this petition was forwarded to the Backbench Business Committee, I felt it was my duty to ensure that it received full and due attention in the House.

Given all the pressures on the parliamentary timetable in the run-up to the recess that is just about to start, it was important to bring this matter forward now, within the required timeline of three months. That is why the Backbench Business Committee has taken the unusual step of scheduling this debate in Westminster Hall on a Monday afternoon, when it is not normally open. If we had not scheduled the debate for today, the petition would have fallen and no debate would have taken place. If that had happened, we would have lost a great opportunity to debate this matter in Parliament and there would have been enormous dissatisfaction for the people who care about it passionately.

Consideration should be given to whether we, as a culturally diverse nation, should start public holidays for non-Christian religions. Such consideration raises all kinds of issues, which I will briefly touch on today. First, I will address some of the main objections to the idea straight away. The Government response to the e-petition was:

“Whilst we appreciate a new national holiday may benefit some communities and sectors, the cost to the economy remains considerable and any changes to the current arrangements would not take place without a full consultation.”

I do not disagree with having a consultation or with the need to ensure that there are benefits to a public holiday. Such concerns are valid. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, each public holiday costs £2.3 billion per day due to losses in retail, commercial, service and other industries. If that estimate is correct, we are looking at an overall economic cost of just less than £5 billion if the Muslim faith and the Hindu faith were to be given one specified public holiday each.

Further, the centre believes that annual output would be raised by £19 billion if all public and bank holidays were scrapped. Accountants RSM Tenon had an even higher estimate, reckoning that £30 billion would be recouped if we cancelled all public holidays. However, that is not likely to happen; I cannot believe that any Government would ever dare to cancel Christmas.

We cannot make a case for or against further public holidays just on the basis of money; if we did, we would not have any at all. Saying that is not to diminish the response of the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills to this petition, but to make the case that there are bigger considerations than just the cost.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He may be about to mention this, but will he clarify something? Is he saying that we need two extra public holidays or that he wants to reallocate existing bank holidays so that they come at the right time to recognise these festivals?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to the issue of the number of public holidays and how they should be apportioned in a few minutes. If he allows me to develop my points a little further, all will become clearer.

Another contentious issue is the fact that both Eid and Diwali have unpredictable timings. They fall on different days every year, but so does Easter; Easter is not a fixed time in the calendar, but we schedule that without too much difficulty. It is also useful to consider that Eid and Diwali fall at times of the year that are currently devoid of public holidays. Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan, comes around the end of July, while Diwali comes towards the end of October or the start of November, depending on the phasing of the moon. Public holidays at those times would work well in giving workers an even spread of celebratory days off.

This e-petition attracted the signatures of 122,991 people, which I believe makes it the largest e-petition that has come to central Government since e-petitions began. That demonstrates that this issue is an important concern for a significant number of people in this country. Furthermore, it is probably worth mentioning that a responding e-petition, which called for the status quo to be maintained, has not even received 40 signatures yet. So the groundswell of opinion certainly appears to be in favour of this particular move.

Islam and Hinduism are the second and third largest religions in the UK respectively, after Christianity. Combined, they account for 6.8% of the population, with the trend of their growth increasing. The Muslim population is predicted to increase by 8.2% by 2030, due to a higher than average birth rate among Muslims and increased immigration from Muslim countries. In Manchester, one in 10 school days were missed due to religious occasions for Muslims, which raises concerns about educational attainment in that particular community. With young Muslim men currently twice as likely to be unemployed as other young men, according to the Office for National Statistics, this has to be of paramount concern; it is an issue not only in that community, but in the whole community.

In 2013, the average unemployment rate for young people in all minority ethnic groups, who are typically from these faith communities, jumped from 33% to 37%, according to the Department for Work and Pensions. Young people of faith should not be put in the position of having to choose between their religious festivals and their education; that is not good for them and it is not good for the country or the economy as a whole.

With regard to all Muslims and Hindus who are working and contributing to our economy, is there not an argument to be made about the validation that would come with a sense of recognition? Would it not be a statement that we, as a nation, embrace these religions and the people who hold them dear and are ready to recognise their place in our society? Creating these public holidays would be an important step towards promoting the understanding and tolerance of different faiths, not only at home but abroad. We want other nations to look to the UK for a good example of positive integration, and highly skilled prospective immigrants to consider coming to our country with the sense that their faith is a respected part of their identity.

That is particularly important for the Muslim community, who have been the target of all kinds of hate campaigns and abuse because of the sins of a very small minority of extremists. To give a snapshot of the problem, I should say that ChildLine reported that 1,400 people—an increase of 69% of students—claim that they have suffered racial and Islamophobic bullying.

Education is important, as is societal acceptance, and public holidays are not just for the few; they are a national event that everybody can take part in, regardless of whether they subscribe to a particular faith or to none. The argument has to be made that educating a wider section of the population in the traditions and holidays of different religions in such a widespread way would be valuable in helping to normalise the integration of those faiths into our cultural identity. It would be valuable in promoting cohesion and peace among the religions in our country, as it would not place preference for one over another.

I realise that this argument prompts a question: why only create public holidays for Hindu and Muslim festivals? Why not also add days for other religious groupings as well? At the last count, in the 2011 census, there were 2.6 million Muslims, 800,000 Hindus, 420,000 Sikhs and 260,000 Jews in this country. Although this petition focused on the former two groups, I do not see why it should not be expanded to include other popular major religions. Just because Judaism already has some festivals that coincide with the Christian holidays—for example, Passover and Hanukkah—does not mean the Jewish religion should not have its own public holiday for Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. If we stay away from the cost issue for the moment and look at the ulterior social benefits involved, why not? Why not give each of these main faiths an honoured place in our calendar?

To acknowledge the intervention by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), I should say that it is a sad fact that the UK has fewer public holidays than everywhere else in the world, apart from Mexico and China. We have eight public holidays, including the two at Christmas and Easter, over four-day periods, which are tied to the Christian faith.

Looking at the national picture, the economic recovery that the Conservative-led coalition Government have secured, against all the odds, means that the UK is now set to overtake France to become the fifth largest economy in the world by 2022, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research. I would say that whether that occurs is contingent on gaining a Conservative majority next year, but of course we are on the up and I trust that our coalition partners will continue to join us.

Looking at the economic league tables and comparing the number of public holidays that nations have, we should be able to come to some conclusions about how much public holidays affect our economic performance. The United States has 10 public holidays; Japan, the third largest economy in the world, has 15 national public holidays, with another one recently approved, giving it double the number that we get; Germany, in fourth place, gets nine; and France has 11. I will refrain from making the old joke that half of every day in France is a public holiday, but suffice it to say that our next door neighbours and competitors have more holidays than we do. It is hard to make the case for economic concerns based on those numbers.

Some schools of thought hold that the economy is actually boosted by allowing the work force to have time away from work, which can be in the way, to shop or enjoy sports activities or observe faith-related events. After all, a happy work force is a productive one, as the old adage goes. It is impossible to tell the economic benefit of or the economic damage done by a public holiday, as there are simply too many factors involved. However, no one can doubt that national morale is important and, like it or not, people of different faiths are very much a staple part of our work force and our national cultural identity.

Just as the Christians get to enjoy the traditions associated with Christmas—an early morning start to open presents, joining family and friends in celebration and the traditional feast—so should our second and third largest faith groups be able to do the same on one or two days of particular importance.

In the departmental response to this e-petition, it is also stated, as a matter of rejection, that the

“current pattern is well established and accepted”.

That is true. However, I would argue that traditions have to be made, not just maintained. We have had British Muslims and British Hindus for decades. It is not a case of creating a new tradition; it is a case of observing traditions that already exist here on a more widespread basis—of validating the cultural heritage of all sections of our society, not just the majority.

Let us not forget that people from minority backgrounds still find it a great deal more difficult to have any sort of visibility in public life. I recently instigated the all-party group on British Hindus in an attempt to give that community in particular a way to make their concerns better represented—in politics, at least. I have met Hindus from various parts of the world who have taken the creation of the group as a positive sign that the political establishment no longer intends to ignore their needs.

Being such a peaceful, hard-working, well established and therefore integrated community has in some ways worked against British Hindus, as they were allowed to feel invisible for far too long. However, the truth is that establishing an all-party group is only one small part of what needs to be a far greater effort to ensure that our minority faith communities gain that sense of belonging that the majority take for granted.

Hon. Members who are interested will have noted that an effort is already being made in both Downing street and Parliament, generally, to observe holidays such as Eid and Diwali properly. I expect that many colleagues in the House have attended these occasions and supported them. They are popular, lively, joyous events that I enjoy getting involved with each year. There is something to be said for everybody embracing the heritage of these cultures, even if for only one day a year, and it would be nothing but a positive step to have our observances replicated nationally. If the Prime Minister can take time out to celebrate these occasions and the communities they belong to every year, why should not the rest of us?

The extremely high number of signatures gained by this e-petition should not go unheard in Parliament and by Ministers, because it is not simply about having more public holidays—although more of those would certainly be welcome, regardless of what they are for; it is about the meaning behind them. It is about giving an overwhelming indication that our minority communities are not just on the fringes of our society any more, but are a part of who we are and what our nation will become in future.

To have an Eid public holiday and a Diwali public holiday, as a starting point, would send a simple, straightforward message that transcends any cultural or language barriers. It would be a mark of modernisation in this globalised world for Britain to recognise non-majority faith holidays so decisively. Indeed, it would be unprecedented. I am not suggesting a flurry of new holidays, so the Minister can sit happily for the moment. All religions have many different festivals and occasions that are marked through the year and, if we had a public holiday for all of them, no one would have time to work. I am merely suggesting a single day for each, so that every part of our community is celebrated and able to celebrate fully, without having to sacrifice time in education or work.

I should be grateful if the Minister provided a fuller analysis of the Department’s causes of objection to this e-petition and responded to my points on the many and varied positive aspects of introducing these holidays. Some 122,000 people deserve a better answer than a vague excuse regarding costs and established traditions. I look forward to the responses from the Opposition spokesman and the Minister on this important subject that I believe is without precedent.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Before congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), it is important to note that people are watching this important debate, which is being held in the House because it was proposed by a huge number of signatories. I know that many hon. Members wanted to contribute. However, it is unfortunate that the timetabling means that it is happening at exactly the same time as the statement in the main Chamber on the appalling travesty that has happened in Ukraine, and the incredibly serious situation that continues in Gaza and that is causing a huge amount of widespread concern. Unfortunately, a large number of people who would have been in this debate are listening to that statement. As a result, it is left to me to respond to the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the debate. He did so in a constructive manner, with a good deal more conviction and power than he showed with his recent penalty at White Hart Lane. None the less, he introduced the debate in a way that many people will have appreciated and respected. I place on record my pleasure at having the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley—I think it is the first time I have done so.

The debate is on an incredibly important matter. I am responding as Labour’s shadow small business Minister and, in doing so, I will take a moment to reflect on the huge contribution made by people of Muslim, Hindu or Sikh faith, not just to our society, social integration and the diversity of our country, but to our economy, which it is equally important for us to recognise. As I go to small business consultations up and down the country in my capacity as the shadow small business Minister, I am unsurprised but always blown away by the massive contribution of our south Asian communities and the huge number of businesses they have set up. There has been huge growth in the number of small businesses in the past 25 to 30 years, and it is no coincidence that that has coincided with a big increase in the number of members of those communities. Their contribution to our community and our economy is recognised, as is their contribution to our sense of diversity. On this day when England have sadly been trumped at cricket by India at the home of cricket, in front of what appeared to be tens of thousands of Indian cricket supporters—that loss would never have happened in Nasser Hussain’s day—it is important to recognise that contribution.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the festival of Eid al-Fitr, which is also known as the feast of fast-breaking. It marks the end of Ramadan and the start of a feast that can last up to three days in some countries. It is one of Islam’s two major festivals and involves many Muslims waking up early and praying, either at an outdoor prayer ground or a mosque. I know that the decorations that go with the festival and the people dressed up in their finery are a sight to behold. One lesson across all religions, and for those of all faiths and none, is that it is a festival where old wrongs are forgiven, money is redistributed to the poor, special foods are prepared and families and friends get together to share the feast—they share in not only a very spiritual time, but a time of great celebration. It is a joyous occasion, but underlining all that is that it is a festival of worship and praise. It is important to get that on the record.

Diwali is also known as the festival of lights. Anyone who has been involved in or invited to a Diwali celebration knows that it is a truly magical occasion, celebrated by Hindus and Sikhs. It refers back to the day that Rama returned to his people after 14 years of exile, during which he fought and won a battle against the demons and the demon king Ravana. The festival of lights symbolises that victory over evil—the victory of light over darkness, which has parallels in many other religions. I put on record the importance of these festivals to the two largest religious groups in this country aside from Christians. It is incredibly important to recognise that.

I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned his constituency, which has tremendous diversity, and he rightly hit on one of the issues that faces us. As we become an increasingly diverse country and we see bigger communities—not just Muslim and Hindu, but Sikh, Jewish, Chinese and those of people from across Europe—if we go down the path of saying, “Everyone across the entire country should take time off for their festivals,” we may find that that path is never-ending. It is difficult to make judgments on which groups we would recognise by introducing time off for us all to celebrate with them. Is there a better approach to trying to recognise across all those religions and groups of people that their needs should be respected and that businesses and employers should try to work around those? Just because the Chinese community is smaller, it does not mean that its festivals mean less to them than festivals mean to Muslims and Hindus. That is one circle that the Government will find difficult to square, and we recognise that.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fact that the festivals come at irregular times in the Gregorian calendar. He made the point that Easter comes at irregular times and that we manage to accommodate it. The truth is that the Easter festival has Good Friday and Easter Monday, so it always comes around a weekend. It naturally fits into being part of a long weekend, and that is a consistent feature. That is not to say that the irregularity of other festivals is impossible to get around, but it is an important issue.

The hon. Gentleman also made the point that many Muslim children take time off because of festivals. He then argued that, because they are falling behind educationally in some areas in comparison to children of other religions, the response should be that other children have that time off. I suggest that that possibly answers an important question with the wrong answer. Perhaps we should think more specifically about how schools can work more productively to recognise that some children will on occasion be off school because of festivals. We should look at how we can work with them to catch up outside of that time. It goes in the opposite direction of Government policy to say that all children should have more time off from school by creating an extra bank holiday when the problem that that tries to address is that children from those communities are already taking that time off. It would fly in the face of other Government policies.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points with which I strongly agree. One of them was that a recognition of the significance of the festivals—he was talking about that in the context of a public holiday, but it is important to recognise their significance anyway—is part of a recognition that Muslims’ and Hindus’ faith is an important part of their contribution to our country and their make-up. We cannot celebrate their contribution, as we all do across the House, without recognising that those festivals are an important and integral part of their faith and that their faith is an integral part of their being. I am glad that he put that point on the record. It is one that I absolutely support.

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that Britain has fewer public holidays than most other countries, but that is potentially misleading due to the difference between public holidays and the number of days that workers have away from work. On the basis of what he said about happy workers being productive workers, he will celebrate that the previous Labour Government introduced the statutory right to a minimum of 20 days holiday. An analysis of the number of days of holiday that employers allowed their workers versus the number that they took placed the Japanese at the bottom of the list with an average of 16 days allowed holiday per annum. Next were those from the United States with 17 days, then came New Zealanders with 19.5 days, Canadians and Australians came next with 20 days, and the Swedish and the Germans were found to have 27.5 days. Those from the United Kingdom have an average of 28 days.

The UK figure usually means a minimum of 20 days plus eight statutory holidays, so we are actually slap bang in the middle of the range of days that employers in major economies allow employees to have. While the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have the lowest number of days when we are all off on the same date—as someone who has recently been attempting to book a summer holiday, I am conscious of the fact that it is not always a good thing for us all to have holidays at exactly the same time—it is important to put it on the record that our number of holidays is not extreme one way or the other. Having claimed that he was not going to do so, the hon. Gentleman made a bit of a jibe at the expense of French workers. It is almost as if he shares the view that the French do not know the meaning of entrepreneur, but I am sure that he would not want to go down that route. It is important to recognise that this country is neither uniquely blessed in terms of holidays, and nor are we are we particularly badly off when compared with most of our competitors.

The hon. Gentleman said one incredibly important thing—that a happy work force is a productive work force. He said it in the context of a bit of a party political statement, but I share his view. He will be as disappointed as I am that productivity has fallen significantly over the past four years, that we have a surfeit of zero-hours contracts, that an ever-increasing number of people are leaving work and heading down to food banks, and that the number of people in work and in poverty is increasing. Huge numbers of people in my constituency and many others are earning less in insecure work and are paying more for the things that they rely on. The Opposition therefore share his concern about productivity and about doing more to make work pay. The issue’s time has come and it will be a central part of the Labour party manifesto. He was right to say that the issue is important, but my opinion differs on whether the Government have a tremendous track record.

On the substantive points in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, the question of how many bank holidays we should have is not new. Creating new bank holidays is not simple, which the previous Government found out when considering the creation of a new bank holiday for St George’s day. It was also a problem when there were plans to create a VE day bank holiday. The plans were eventually not followed through because of the difficulties involved.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost implications, and it is fair to say that the margin of error is pretty broad. Some argue that there would be a net benefit to the UK economy of as much as £1.1 billion, but some believe that the economy would face a net loss of £3.6 billion. The most recent Department for Culture, Media and Sport assessment that I have seen suggests a £1.2 billion loss to the economy. He rightly referred to the report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which contains different figures, but the cost implications are important.

The irregular nature of the suggested new Eid and Diwali public holidays would also pose particular challenges. It is important to recognise that the UK has significant numbers of Sikhs and Jews and growing populations of other religions, so our response to the debate has to be about how to do more to recognise their contributions. We should work with employers to ensure that they bear important festivals in mind when allocating work and shifts. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should show leadership, working with organisations such as British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, in particular in areas that have smaller numbers of people from those religious groups and where awareness might not be so great. It may well be that people of all faiths in Harrow are aware of Eid and Diwali, but there may be less awareness in other areas with smaller but no less important communities of people who celebrate such festivals. As a result, employers in such areas may not be thinking about how they work with people of all faiths to ensure that they get the opportunity to celebrate their festivals.

I have several questions on this incredibly important topic and am interested in the Minister’s response. What assessment has she made of the number of bank holidays in Britain? What assessment have the Government made about whether holidays are spaced in the most effective way? Is the balance right? What discussions have the Government had with business groups and trade bodies to maximise the opportunities for Muslim, Hindu and Sikh worshippers to celebrate their festivals? What efforts have been made to promote awareness of different faiths and of the importance of these festivals among employers?

Has any review of bank holidays taken place under this Government or are there plans for such a review? What is the Government’s latest assessment of the benefits and costs to the UK economy of additional bank holidays? What are the Government’s thoughts about ensuring that bank holidays fall on days on which the largest number of people will want to celebrate, so that they are seen as inclusive rather than exclusive? How can the Government use bank holiday policy to bring different communities together?

In conclusion, I look forward to hearing to the Minister’s response to those questions. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East for securing the debate and for the manner in which he introduced this incredibly important topic. It may be that we are not able to deliver precisely what he calls for, but I hope that the debate has provided an opportunity for us to recognise the issues facing people in Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, and for us to think not only in legislative terms, but also about Government guidance and leadership, to ensure that the maximum number of people get to celebrate such festivals. This country should continue to be diverse and we should go as far as we can to recognise people of all faiths, and to ensure that their right to celebrate their faith is not economically or culturally undermined in any way. This important debate should be a stepping stone towards greater diversity and social cohesion. If we are able to achieve that, it will have been a very important debate indeed.

The Economy and Living Standards

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

In 2010, the Chancellor said that, by now, the economy would have grown by 12%. It has actually grown by half that amount. That is why the deficit has not come down and why people are worse off. The Chancellor would have been well advised to take the sound advice in 2010 and not choke off the economic recovery. He should take the sound advice of the IMF now and look at ways to improve housing supply and to tackle the woeful productivity performance over which he is presiding.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Chancellor acts as though he is the only person who has delivered growth, but we already had growth when he came to power. When there was light at the end of the tunnel, he spent two and a half years building more tunnel. Finally, now that we have growth—after everyone else—he says, “Haven’t I done well?”.

[Ed Balls]

My hon. Friend’s description of the historical record since 2010 is correct. However, the real issue is why we still have such low investment and why living standards are still falling. The jobs that we are creating are not delivering rising living standards for working people. We have only to look at the election results from a few weeks ago to see the potential challenge to Britain’s place in the world if we do not understand those forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

The Chancellor says that the economic plan is working, but who is it working for? It might be working for his friends who he used to go boozing with at the Bullingdon club, but working people in my constituency find that it is harder and harder every single month to make work pay. What will the Chancellor do to make work pay under his Government?

[Mr Osborne]

That is what is so revealing about the Labour party’s performance in the past half hour. The shadow Chancellor started by reading out the article in the New Statesman this morning and trying his piece on new politics, but within about 10 minutes it all descended into Bullingdon club jokes, and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) having to withdraw his comment. The shadow Chancellor then descended into the normal slapdash that we have got used to in the House. Incidentally, there is a striking echo of what went wrong with the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the beginning of the Queen’s Speech debate. That is because he is unable to engage in the serious economic argument about what needs to happen in this country.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

At a time when people are facing a choice between heating and eating, the sight of those ignorant, braying public school boys on the Tory Benches during the response by the Leader of the Opposition showed the contempt that they have for the serious issues that people in my constituency are facing. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) spoke far more to the real issues faced by my constituents than did the hour-long lecture that we heard from the Chancellor today.

This is the Chancellor’s fourth Budget and people in Chesterfield know what to expect: a recovery for the few, not the many; a denial that the cost of living crisis is engulfing British families under his watch; and a steadfast refusal to take action on the key issues facing our economy. He said today his core purpose was the economic security of people in Britain; well, he has a funny way of showing it. He should know that despite the increase in the tax threshold, the combination of the VAT increase, the failure to take action on uncompetitive markets, the low wage, low security economy he is creating, and the slowest recovery in history mean that people are poorer under the Tories.

For those feeling the pinch, as families are £1,600 worse off under this Government, there was precious little here. For families struggling with the cost of child care, there was a promise that after five years of rising prices things will get better if only people are fool enough to vote for the Tories a second time. For those who cannot afford a deposit as house prices spiral, there is nothing about tackling the lack of supply but further measures that could increase the prices. For the small business owner desperate to grow and branch out but who has been refused loans by all the major high street banks, there is nothing about the access to finance crisis.

These stories are all too familiar to people in Chesterfield, but their plight is not a by-product of the Chancellor’s plan; it is the Chancellor’s plan. He thinks that Britain’s economy can grow only by winning a race to the bottom, but an economy built on insecure work, zero-hours contracts, and fewer rights in the workplace is a castle built on sand, trapping people between an insecure workplace that seems to say that working people should just be grateful for any work they can get and a benefits system that shatters their dignity and crushes their spirit.

The Chancellor said that each job makes a family more secure. Well, not under this Government it doesn’t, because many of the 5,000 people who rely on food banks to feed them are in work. The increase in the number of people in work and in poverty is a national disgrace. Under this Government work is not the route out of poverty it once was.

The Chancellor promised us the pain he inflicted on our families would be worth it because two parties had come together to eradicate the deficit, but today we learn that his central purpose—the reason we put up with this Government—which is deficit eradication is still £90 billion away. We should remember what the Office for Budget Responsibility told us back in 2010. It told us that by the end of this Parliament we would have seen growth of 14.6%. Well, from quarter four of 2010 until now growth has been just 3.5%. The deficit will still be £75 billion by 2015-16. The Chancellor’s failure means he has increased the national debt more in three years than Labour did in 13 and he has failed in respect of the cost of living for working families and he has failed to take action on the energy companies.

We know from a ComRes survey released just this Sunday that a pitiful 9% of the public say their ability to pay their monthly bills has improved since the Chancellor entered No. 11 Downing street, and what about yesterday’s Survation poll showing that, when the poll was restricted to people in work, Labour held a 17% lead? Let there be no doubt which is the party for workers. The Chancellor’s priorities could not be clearer: take food from the mouths of families living in poverty to fund a £100,000 cut for his friends in the City earning over £1 million a year.

As shadow pubs Minister it would be churlish of me not to welcome the Chancellor’s temperance when it came to alcohol duty this year, although we should remember both that he is the Chancellor who raised most from the beer duty escalator that he kept for three Budgets, and that his increase in VAT added more to the cost of a pint than the increase in beer duty has done.

On business rates, what we have seen is a Conservative con trick: a £1,000 discount while the underlying rate of business rates is going up—a bomb waiting to go off under the high street recovery. In two years’ time those levels of business rates will have continued to go up and the discount will just disappear if anyone is foolish enough to vote for this Government again. Businesses’ key concerns in respect of the Budget were crystal clear: all the major business groups’ Budget submissions said there must be action on access to finance, yet we have seen absolutely nothing.

This Government are in denial. They cannot understand why people are not thanking them for the recovery they are delivering, but the truth is people know that evidence of the recovery is not appearing in their pockets. We desperately need a jobs guarantee, and Labour’s jobs guarantee will not only take young people off the scrapheap, but it will end the cycle of hopelessness that sees young people trapped in life on the dole. They will not be further impoverished by benefits sanctions, but will have a positive role that says to the young, “You should be at work. We’ll fund the job, you’ve got to take it.”

This was the Chancellor’s last chance, but, again, when the moment arrived he flunked it. Trapped in an analysis of Britain’s problems that is fundamentally wrong, it is hardly surprising he came up with the wrong answers. People struggling with the cost of living yesterday will still be struggling tomorrow. Parents kept out of the jobs market by the cost of child care have been told to hang on until 2015. For big business struggling with access to finance, absolutely nothing. This Government have run out of ideas; let’s have an election.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Holiday Pricing

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Justin Tomlinson]

Like Bournemouth, which is a fantastic place to go on holiday, my hon. Friend’s intervention was fantastic. I am coming to that point in a bit. I have had many enjoyable holidays in Bournemouth.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for giving way and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for his comment. We support greater flexibility for different authorities, but can we ensure that Derbyshire gets the warmest months?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Derbyshire is also a fantastic place to go on holiday. Let us champion every constituency. I think that we are on safe ground, with cross-party support, when championing the UK tourism industry.

We need to be 100% sure that there are not some unscrupulous operators, but predominantly we need to focus on the two other areas of discretion and flexibility. On discretion, there is already confusion among a lot of parents. A lot of parents have contacted me to say, “We have triggered fines. We feel that our decision to take our children out of school was justified, but the school came back and said, ‘Under the new rules, there is absolutely no discretion; you will be fined’.” As a Government representative, I have almost felt obliged to apologise on behalf of the Government.

At one school that has made the new rules clear, the chair of governors said, “No. Actually, there is discretion. We, through the pastoral team, will look at those parents whose children have excellent attendance records and are achieving well in school and we will look at why they might be taken out of school, for a funeral, say, compared to a holiday without educational benefits, and it would be weighed up.” Clearly, there is confusion and that needs to be resolved.

There is the assumption that there is pressure from Ofsted because it looks at attendance records when rating a school. If a school decides to say that, because of cost and work pressures, it will allow a good level of discretion, its attendance records do not look good. That also needs to be considered, because that would be a disincentive for a school to apply common-sense discretion.

I think that all hon. Members would agree that, perhaps, discretion should apply where children are doing well and where parents work during school holidays. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is a champion for the armed forces, highlights one career, but I am sure that there many others, in all our constituencies, where parents can take their children on holiday only during school time. We have all noticed the cost of peak holidays.

There are some challenges. I have been contacted by teachers who say that they do not like being in the firing line and having discretion, because if they feel that the child should not be given time off they are the ones who are blamed. Sometimes there are reasons why that should not be so. I have also been told that, in the past, when there was discretion about 10 days or 10 sessions, some parents felt that it was an automatic right to have that every year, even if the child was struggling. There was never a case of a parent saying, “You’re absolutely right. I’ll now withdraw that request.” It would create heated discussion. If we are to consider discretions, clear guidelines, which were suggested earlier, are an absolute must.

We must also consider teachers, because although discretion can help pupils and parents, the teachers would not have discretion to take time off during terms. That is not necessarily a complete, one-size-fits-all solution.

I am a big fan of flexibility in this regard. One big suggestion is flexible term times. About a year ago I was contacted by a resident, Nicki Mitchell, on this issue. I suggested flexible term times and was asked, “What happens if you have a child in a primary school and another at a secondary school, and they have different term times? That will make it even harder.” A number of residents have contacted me and said that such flexibility exists in Europe and that it is done by county or region. We might decide that the south-east goes a couple of weeks earlier and the south-west goes a couple of weeks later. However, in Europe it is done in rotation, so it is not always the south-west or south-east first. Not only would that help parents and children, but it would probably help the tourism industry, because almost regardless of what it charges it can fill up at peak time, but the rest of year it faces a real challenge. Spreading that across the year would be helpful.

If we cannot manage flexible term times, another suggestion is extending the school year by two weeks and allowing everybody automatically two weeks’ worth of discretion throughout the year. That would probably be incredibly unpopular with teachers, who would then face an extra two weeks, but I thought that I would mention it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. You have only just joined us; I assure you that you have missed an excellent debate. I will attempt to do some sort of justice to it, in my own modest way, but you might chose to read Members’ words for yourself later.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on bringing the issue for debate and on the way in which he presented it. The strength of opinion that has been articulated in the debate, the size of the petition and the testimony we have heard from hon. Members clearly show how important the matter is and how right he was.

A couple of hon. Members have reflected on the fact that the Minister is from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and I am responding as a shadow BIS Minister. The initial petition looked very much at the business aspect of the matter, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley was right to say that the whole aspect of the debate has changed since the initial petition first went on to the e-petition system. That was reflected in the debate, which did not dwell much on the business aspect but focused much more on educational policy. That perhaps leaves me at a slight disadvantage.

The issue is of great concern for my constituents, many of whom have taken the opportunity to raise it with me at my weekly surgeries, by e-mail and at the school gate. I did a summer survey in which I raised questions about the changes, which demonstrated powerfully to me how strongly people feel about the matter. We all know how desperately difficult it is to get that balance between the fact that we want our children to be in school at all the right times and the huge increase in the cost of holidays during the school breaks. It was therefore no surprise to me that 150,000 people across the country took action by signing the online petition and demanding that MPs discuss the issue. That is why we have had so many valuable contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I will touch on those in a moment.

A situation has been created in which many families who have not previously faced the dilemma of how to afford an annual summer holiday now find themselves financially squeezed and wondering how to do so. All of us know how important holidays together can be for a family. We are an incredibly time-poor nation, and, often, many people are stretched. We struggle to have time with our families given the huge number of pressures on us, so family holidays are incredibly important. It is tremendously difficult for people when they feel that their opportunity to go on those holidays has been removed. We all recognise how important the issue is.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley was right to say that this is another demonstration of how powerful e-petitions can be. It has shown how issues that we do not immediately see as significant can have their significance powerfully demonstrated to us by our constituents. The response of people to the e-petition demonstrated the importance of this issue.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of staggering holidays, something to which many hon. Members referred. That is an important part of the whole equation. Colleagues in the Department for Education have been looking at that issue and exploring how greater flexibility can be given to schools. The point was made powerfully that we do not want a parent such as myself, with one child in secondary school and one in primary school, to find that their children’s schools have holidays at different times. Perhaps we can try to stretch out the holiday season on a more systematic basis, recognising that although we are not blessed with sunshine all year round in this country, as some areas are, we could none the less stagger holidays to take a bit of pressure off.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that this issue has been debated in this place since the mid-1960s. It is interesting to question why people feel so strongly about it now. The broader pinch that people are feeling at the moment and how the holiday market has changed in recent years, as well as the recent changes to Government education policy, are perhaps some reasons why what has been to an extent a hoary old chestnut for 40-odd years is now being raised powerfully.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) suggested that discretion does exist—a point repeated a moment ago—and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised the important question of what constitutes exceptional circumstances. We heard examples of circumstances that have not been considered exceptional. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke about a child with autism whose parents might have specific reasons for not wanting to be on holiday when resorts are most crowded, and asked whether such a case would be considered exceptional.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) highlighted the case of someone whose child had a brain tumour; that was not considered by the head teacher to be an exceptional circumstance. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) highlighted the case of someone who was exceptionally busy during school holidays because of the kind of business they ran, but their circumstances were not considered exceptional.

It is clear that there has been a change of policy. The Government have communicated that quite deliberately, and it is their right to do so. However, exercising that right has had an impact because of how the policy has been implemented. One aspect of today’s debate that I have found interesting was that no contributions have been made by any hon. Members from Scotland—unless we count Corby as representative of that nation. That is not entirely surprising, because Scottish schools have holidays at a different time of year and Scottish people probably benefit quite nicely from the fact that they all go on holiday in July, when prices are cheaper than they are for us in England. That is an interesting observation.

I will now reflect on some of the other contributions to what I think has been an excellent debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire said something that was repeated by many colleagues: across the House we all agree about the importance of children being in school, and recognise the disadvantage there is to children when they are out of school, for whatever reason, for any sustained period. None of us is saying that we think it is good for children to miss huge amounts of their schooling. We are all always conscious of our responsibility in this place to ensure that our children have the best opportunity to be successful at school. However, we also have to recognise that there is a cost of living crisis, with families feeling the pinch, and that we need to do what we can to support them in those circumstances. My hon. Friend powerfully highlighted the reality faced by time-poor, financially stretched families at this time, and the difficult circumstances that they face.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about the strength of feeling and support on this matter, and he was right to do so. He also raised the issue of whether there will be a greater amount of discretion for a child who is going to a funeral than for someone who wants a holiday without educational benefits; how the policy is being applied shows that there is a difference between such cases. He also touched on one of the devilishly difficult parts of the judgment call on the matter when he called for clear guidelines but more discretion. That is what we all want to an extent, but we should recognise the central contradiction in that.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) spoke up for the tourism industry, as we would expect. He spoke about the escalation in cost for popular events, referring to the London Olympics and the fact that in attempting to maximise their opportunities some people potentially priced themselves out of business and ended up falling victim to what they thought would be good times, as they had been too ambitious about what they could charge. I do not know whether he has turned his attention to the frankly extortionate cost to hon. Members of bed and breakfast accommodation in Manchester at the time of the Labour party conference. I have recently tried to make a booking and discovered that Manchester in September is far more expensive that one would expect.

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

There may shortly be a plug for having party conferences in Bournemouth.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me: Bournemouth is better suited for party conferences.

[Toby Perkins]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on repeating my suggestion.

It is usual during winding-up speeches to talk about what has been mentioned during the debate, but I will talk about what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley did not talk about: the tourism industry. An important point that some colleagues mentioned is that holiday accommodation is available for 52 weeks a year, or slightly less, and there is pressure to push the customer base into a shorter and shorter period. The petition refers to profiteering holiday companies exploiting people, but that is not the reality. If a crude cap were introduced, they might retain the current price in August but they would be unable to reduce the price in April. The important question is whether people would be better off or whether those who can go away at different times would not get cheaper holidays.

The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) confessed his sins—it is always good for a Member of Parliament to do that. If he did not quite ask for forgiveness, he at least offered mitigating circumstances. The debate involves the many people who cannot go away during school holidays, as well as the many who can go away only during school holidays—for example, teachers and anyone who works in the education sector and so on. If we increase the pressure, we will push up the cost of their holidays too. The debate started 18 months ago, or 40-odd years ago, depending on how people look at it, but certainly prior to the proposed changes, which, if anything, will push prices up further. What was a problem 18 months ago will be an even bigger problem in a year or two.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) asked why we are talking about the matter now and why it has become so important. I will touch on that, but in his broader view of the debate he said that he supported the petition but not necessarily the proposed remedy. That reflected what many other hon. Members said.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) focused on the semantics of “special” and “exceptional” and seemed to question whether there has been a change in policy. The previous Government introduced fines for people who took their children out of school without authorisation. The Secretary of State was clear that he wanted his direction following the statutory instrument to be seen as a change of policy. Head teachers saw it as that, and many in my constituency wrote to parents saying that the policy had changed and that there would be no discretion other than in narrow and exceptional circumstances. That was clearly the intention of the Secretary of State’s policy.

The debate has been consensual and sensible. It has shown that we all believe strongly and passionately that it is vital for our children to be in school for the maximum amount of time, that standards should be resilient and that parents should recognise their responsibility. We recognise that the present situation is desperate because prices have risen faster than wages in 41 of the last 42 months, and families are feeling the pinch. We are discussing another aspect of that cost-of-living crisis. I intended to give some examples of how prices have increased, but many hon. Members have alluded to that so I need not do so. However, the extent of price differences during the high and low seasons is huge and the success of the e-petition calling for swift action is not surprising.

The Association of British Travel Agents has made it clear that price fluctuations are the commercial reality of running a business in a seasonal market, and we understand that. The hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether the Labour party is proposing a crude cap and rightly gave some reasons why that would be difficult. We do not have a price control policy at a macro level, but that does not mean that there is never a reason to look into whether there is a properly functioning competitive market. I will touch on that.

Many parents believe that they are exploited by the holiday industry, which uses the tight limits on when they can travel to overcharge them, and the huge cost differentials reflect that. However, there have been no thorough studies of the issue in recent years, so it is hard to get to the bottom of the problem and the extent of exploitation. The lack of such a study seems at odds with the Government’s intention of addressing consumer protection concerns. I should be grateful if the Minister commented on whether the apparent contradiction of one group of consumers apparently paying over the odds to subsidise another group is questionable under our consumer protection laws.

Consumer law has strong protections to ensure that the public are charged a reasonable price for a service. That presumably includes arranging a holiday, and does not exempt the law of supply and demand. That is an interesting question for the Government. The purpose of the Consumer Rights Bill is to make those rules clearer, but there is a glaring omission because it does not give consumers or consumer groups any power to access the information they need to check whether that is the case. Does the Minister accept that the only way to resolve that confusion more broadly is to have a proper analysis of holiday prices, and do the Government plan to conduct such research? Was there any research prior to the change of policy?

The situation demonstrates the consequences when there is no organisation to stand up for the rights of consumers as a group. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley suggested that an Offonholiday regulator might not be the answer, but it might be worth considering a broader consumer rights body to act as a useful brake on exploitative practices. Most people accept that the rules of supply and demand will ensure that prices are higher at peak times, but many believe that the extreme divergence in prices is unfair.

[Damian Hinds]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is something in the operation of some elements of the travel industry market over and above that which can be coped with by the current competition arrangements?

[Toby Perkins]

That is a valid question. A broader study would provide better information to establish whether that is the case. In July 2012, the Office of Fair Trading concluded a two-year investigation and found that two travel giants had struck deals with a hotel group to restrict smaller agents’ ability to offer discounted hotel rooms. Expedia admitted afterwards that it had

“engaged in cartel conduct in breach of the law”.

In 2013, a discount hotel site alleged that it was forced out of the market after attempting to undercut rivals by offering cheaper prices. There have been allegations of cartel-like activities, and those involved should be investigated and pursued rigorously. Only when we have open, competitive markets can consumers have faith in the prices that they are paying. That is important and entirely legitimate. At the same time, although we recognise that market forces exist, we do not say, “There is never anything to look at”, in the context of whether those markets are being fairly operated. We stand absolutely resolutely on the side of consumers and would be willing to investigate whether action is necessary to ensure that they get a fair deal in the travel market.

The abolition of the Office of Fair Trading, which would have looked at this issue, has highlighted the fact that a gap now exists. There is not another appropriate body that can do what the OFT did. The Competition and Markets Authority is focused on competition and not on outcomes for consumers, and therefore does not complete the same work. Does the Minister share my concerns about the lack of an appropriate body? Does she think that that makes it more likely that consumers will get a raw deal in future?

Other things can be done to support the tourism industry. We recognise that the issue is not only about tourism overseas, but very much about tourism here in the UK. We know that the VAT increase to 20% placed our tourist industry at a competitive disadvantage compared with many of our European competitors, and that the huge increase in business rates over the past three years has had a big impact on many small businesses in the hospitality and tourism industry.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the beginning of his speech, but I had a previous engagement. On the point he just made, does he agree that just as small travel businesses are disproportionately affected by some of those issues, particularly in terms of VAT, small businesses in the hotel and guest house industry can be as well? That is another facet of a complicated debate. I have had representations in my constituency from hoteliers and guest house owners who are concerned about the issue.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes the important point, exactly as one might expect of a Member of Parliament for Blackpool, that the tourism industry is not immune to what is happening in the wider economy. It struggles when people do not have money in their pockets. The industry recognises that people are facing a cost-of-living crisis, but it is also facing a cost-of-doing-business crisis and paying ever higher business rates and ever higher energy prices. That impacts on the prices that people have to charge to make a profit. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which fits in precisely with the one I was making.

To reinforce my hon. Friend’s point, I should say that many small hoteliers want to offer cheaper deals but are held back, not only because of the costs of doing business, but because their cash flows are impeded by large travel websites they supply to. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has highlighted the totally outrageous way in which large organisations, effectively through being perpetrators of paying late, force small businesses to bankroll them. The issue of late payments is incredibly important and has a real impact on the tourism industry and the cost we end up paying as consumers.

The previous Labour Government created an interest rate penalty for large firms that delayed payment to their small suppliers. The next Labour Government will further tackle the issue of late payments, which will be very important to small businesses in the tourism industry here in the UK, and will hopefully also be part of easing that cost-of-doing-business crisis.

In conclusion, I strongly welcome this thoughtful, useful debate. We must ensure that markets are fair. We also have a responsibility in this place to respond when our constituents tell us that the Government’s policies are causing problems. In this debate, each of us has reflected on the difficult decisions that we face, between wanting to make sure that all children are in school for the maximum amount of time and recognising that people are feeling the pinch, that there is a cost-of-living crisis and that we need do all we can to help people, not exacerbate the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

I shall come back to the point about the schools regulations if my hon. Friend will bear with me. If he is not satisfied with my comments, he can come back to me.

There is another important element to consider in respect of the prices in this sector, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire. During peak periods, the UK industry is in fierce competition with those of other countries, whose consumers want to go on holiday to the same destinations. That competition for limited facilities means that costs rise—it is not all being driven by consumers in the UK—and those costs are reflected in the price put to the consumer. As this is a Europe-wide market, consumers are similarly affected in other countries across Europe. As a result, Governments across Europe have decided that protection is needed for consumers in the package holiday sector over and above that provided by general consumer protection law.

I hope that what I say now answers a point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. One of the key protections in the package travel directive is the requirement that those arranging and selling package holidays and package tours have in place protection for consumers against their insolvency. That additional protection is an area in which we in the UK were leaders. The air travel organisers’ license—ATOL—system was brought in before the European regime as a result of the huge growth in the UK of the package holiday market in the 1970s and 1980s.

The extra protection is considered necessary because those operating in the package travel market are deemed to be more at risk of insolvency than businesses in other sectors. That is because the business model in the holiday industry is based on predicting demand and committing to those predictions in advance. I mention that because it is further evidence of the extent and level of competition in that market—the industry is forced by those pressures to price as competitively as it can. There is considered to be a higher risk of insolvency in that sector because the margins are thin and because the market is so competitive.

[Toby Perkins]

The Minister describes the pressures on the market, and we have heard that there was no impact assessment because it was considered that there would be no impact on the industry. Given that the change was introduced after people had booked their holidays and after the holiday companies had set their prices, does she think that it was right to say that there would be no impact whatever on the industry from the change?

[Jenny Willott]

I cannot comment on the impact assessment done by the Department for Education, but I will come back to the point about the regulations. I think it is wrong to say that the 2013 change was a significant change in the law, but I will come back to that in a minute.

Hon. Members will have gathered from what I have said that I am not convinced that businesses in the holiday market are treating consumers unfairly in the way in which they price their products. It is pressures in the market that cause the fluctuation in prices that some have concluded is unfair. However, the hon. Member for Chesterfield raised allegations of cartel-like behaviour. If hon. Members come across allegations of that nature, they should be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for investigation. That is what it is there for, or at least it will be from 1 April. Cases like that involving Expedia, which the hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned, were dealt with by the Office of Fair Trading, but will in the future be dealt with by the Competition and Markets Authority. However, the CMA will also have a role in keeping markets under review for breaches of competition law and consumer detriment, so it has a broader remit. It will also have a role in dealing with consumer enforcement issues when an issue has nationwide implications. This would be an area where that could be considered.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) asked about discussions between travel agents, the holiday industry and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. BIS is in regular contact with the holiday industry on a very wide range of issues—that is the relationship—and my officials will of course raise the points that have been raised in today’s debate when they next meet representatives of the industry, so we will ensure that hon. Members’ views are fed back.

Having said that, I am very sympathetic to those who struggle to afford a holiday in peak season. I appreciate that the difference in price between off season and high season can be very significant. If people have children, it becomes increasingly expensive and difficult to take holidays, and I appreciate that the problem places an extra burden on families. I also completely agree that family holidays are enormously important. They give children opportunities to relax and unwind and create lasting memories, as well as building family relationships and broadening the experiences of children. I have very fond memories of taking holidays as a child with my grandparents and parents and I am sure that everyone in the room would say the same. It is important that children are able to have those experiences and benefit from them.

Clearly, in all of this, the dates of the school holidays are critical. It has been suggested that pressures on the industry might be alleviated by extending the periods during which families can take a holiday, thereby spreading the demand over a longer period. We have heard that idea mentioned today, and it is put forward not only by those who want cheaper family holidays; it is also supported by many in the industry. We have also heard it said a lot today that the rules on school attendance are too strict. Almost every hon. Member who spoke discussed that. People have suggested that schools should be able to approve families going on holiday during term time. Others believe that it would help if schools had different term dates. I shall come back to that point, but, on the issue of absence, despite the clear value that a family holiday can have for children and also for parents, the Government’s view is that a good education is more valuable for pupils in the long run and that getting a good education depends on regular school attendance throughout the school year.

We have heard a lot about the change in regulations in 2013. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) gave a very useful summary of the legal framework. I found it quite illuminating and am sure that a number of other colleagues did as well. What the Government did in 2013 was remove the misconception held by some parents that pupils were entitled to 10 days’ absence for holidays per year. There was actually no entitlement in the previous regulations—that was not what they said. We have clarified that school heads should accept a request for a leave of absence only in exceptional circumstances.

We have heard a number of examples of cases in which requests have been turned down by head teachers. Many of them are very distressing, but I clearly cannot comment on individual cases, not knowing the full details. Let me make it clear that the Government have not said that any absence is not possible. We have given head teachers the discretion to make that call. In addition, we have not specified what constitutes exceptional circumstances, as we believe that cases need to be considered individually. A number of hon. Members mentioned the need to trust head teachers, and that is exactly what the Government are trying to do—we want to ensure that head teachers have the power and discretion to look at the individual circumstances of an application and take them into account.

Pub Companies

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that two years have passed since its resolution on pub companies of 12 January 2012; remains of the view that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee was right to state in its Fourth Report, on Consultation on a Statutory Code for Pub Companies, HC 314, that only a statutory code of practice which included a mandatory rent-only option for pub companies which own over 500 pubs, an open market rent review and an independent adjudicator would resolve the contractual problems between the big pub companies and their lessees; further notes that pub closures are increasing, and believes that the Government should by July 2014 bring forward legislative proposals to introduce a statutory code of practice of the kind recommended by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

For many Members, January in Parliament means two things. First—for some— it means the worthy, if somewhat joyless, challenge of a dry month, and secondly, it means a parliamentary debate about pubs.

This is the third January in a row during which the House has debated the regulation of pub companies. We know that pubs in our local communities are among our constituencies’ most precious assets, and a quick trawl through the press releases expressing MPs’ dismay at the fact that much-loved pubs in their area face closure will reveal immediately what an emotive issue this is, and how passionate our constituents feel about it.

I know that Members on both sides of the House will agree that, economically, socially and culturally, pubs are part of the fabric of our great nation. As well as being community hubs, they make a huge contribution to our fragile economy. Each pub employs an average of 10 people—often young people; often women, including working mums—who are finding it particularly hard to obtain other work. When a pub closes, its local economy loses about £80,000. More widely, the production and sale of beer contributes about £19 billion to the United Kingdom’s GDP, and generates total taxation revenues of £10 billion each year.

Given that a wide body of experts and more than 27,000 other people signed the 38 Degrees petition on pubco reform in just four days, today is one of those—some would argue—all too rare occasions in an MP’s life when he can vote for something that is both popular and right. In the last decade, our expectations of our locals have changed, and consumers now rank food higher than beer or sociability among their reasons for choosing a pub. As I know there is so much common ground between many Members across the House, I shall argue the case for reform in as unpartisan a way as I am capable of. [Laughter.]

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

I will, on that conciliatory note.

[Dr Huppert]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to take that step. He is right to say that there have been huge problems with pub closures, but as a result of new policies introduced by Liberal Democrat-led Cambridge city council, not only are pubs not closing, but previously closed pubs are able to reopen. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the council on its excellent work, which has been supported by the Campaign for Real Ale and many other organisations?

[Toby Perkins]

Of course I welcome anyone taking a positive step in what is an incredibly difficult climate. At a time when there are so many pressures on pubs— 26 are now closing each week—anyone who is able to buck that trend will have our wholehearted support.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am possibly the only Member in the House who owns a pub. I am the chair of the John Clare Trust, which has bought the Exeter Arms, where Clare and his father used to sing and play. Unfortunately, it is closed at the moment, but we are determined to reopen it as a community pub.

[Toby Perkins]

I almost got carried away there, then my hon. Friend announced that his pub was in fact closed. However, the fact that his determination and vigour will ensure that it soon reopens gives us all a sense of enthusiasm and excitement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), a former Enterprise Inns landlord himself, will have the honour of winding up the debate. I also want to salute the many other hon. Members who are here today and who have previously raised this issue in debates here or in the press, or joined campaigns in their communities to highlight the problems caused by aggressive pub company behaviour.

In September 2011, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s fourth review of pub companies finally settled on the view that only a statutory code with a mandatory rent-only option would put the pubco relationship on a fairer footing. I was therefore disappointed by the suggestion in today’s Government amendment that Labour should have regulated this issue before. The Government will know that it was precisely because the Select Committee wanted to give the pubcos time to get their house in order that they were given a final chance in 2010, with a timetable that the Secretary of State supported when he first came into office.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the Government are using the previous Government’s decision to abide by a Select Committee recommendation as an excuse to ignore the current Select Committee recommendation?

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an excellent opportunity to put on record my gratitude—and that of the whole House and the wider coalition supporting the reform—for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee, which has led the way on this issue. I entirely agree that it is odd that, with such a large body of opinion in favour of the reform, it has been so difficult for the Government to support the recommendation that the previous Government were behind and that this Government said in 2011 that they would support.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Many people outside the House are clearly taking a great deal of interest in this debate. We have a lot of independent brewers in the south-west, and some fantastic beers are sold in the local pubs. Many publicans there have raised the issue of the way rents are passed on with little independent assessment. Is my hon. Friend going to say something about that?

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend has successfully predicted what I am going to say. I will definitely touch on that issue, because it is one of the key elements of the debate.

I also want to take this opportunity to reflect on some of the other contributions that have been made in the run-up to the debate by Members trying to support pubs in their area. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has been a determined campaigner on this issue. Among his many valuable contributions to the campaign, his article in the Yorkshire Post on 10 May was on message enough for the Liberal Democrat press office to promote it with the message that

“pubco terms are the biggest reason for pub closures”.

That was his view in May 2013, as I know it remains. Now, eight months later, I am disappointed to see that he has signed the amendment proposing that the Government need more time to come to the conclusion he has so consistently and persuasively argued for.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman might be disappointed, but I was disappointed that he has tabled this Opposition day motion. We have had a conversation about this. My belief is that support for this issue commands a majority in the House of Commons, and that we need to do this properly, rather than through an Opposition day debate. I look forward to getting the recommendation from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and, at that point, getting everyone on both sides of the House together to push this through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

I have tremendous respect for the hon. Gentleman, but those whose lives have been wrecked by the behaviour of the pub companies will look askance at the idea that, because of the nature of this debate, people will choose whether or not to vote for the motion. We had a Back-Bench debate on the issue two years ago, at which the motion was carried unopposed. However, the Government ignored it. In fact, it is only when the Opposition have brought pressure to bear that we seem to have achieved any movement on the issue. Today, in an entirely open and reasonable way, we are calling for all Members who feel strongly about this, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, to support the motion and give the Government the necessary impetus and the courage of their convictions to take the action that is so desperately needed.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

One reason behind pub closures is the high taxation on spirits in general and on Scotch whisky in particular. Given that spirits and Scotch whisky account for 40% of the sales in pubs, and that the level of taxation continues to escalate, should not the Government look more closely at the inevitable loss of revenue involved?

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are many aspects to the debate on the future of our pubs, but this debate is about the pub companies. I will therefore resist his offer to get drawn into what the shadow Chancellor should propose to do about the taxation of the Scottish whisky industry. However, my hon. Friend rightly identifies whisky as an important product for our pubs, for our economy and particularly for the Scottish economy. Whether the statistic that he has just given us lends any credence to Scottish people’s reputation for an enthusiasm for alcohol I will leave to Members to consider.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

May I offer an example from my constituency to support the motion and illustrate the urgency of the matter? A constituent of mine moved into her pub a few years ago with the promise of significant investment being made in the property. Those repairs have never been carried out. She also has to buy her beer from the pub company; if she buys from elsewhere, the pub company fines her and charges her significantly more. Does not that illustrate why the motion is so important—particularly the part about rent-only tenancies—and why we need action now? Tenants such as my constituent cannot afford to wait any longer for action.

[Toby Perkins]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

I shall outline how we have arrived at this position. We have now seen the full scale of the revelations from the Select Committee in its four different reviews over eight years. Examples have also been given by many Members from across the House on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) are all well-known champions of the cause. Just a little research has revealed many more.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has told the House about the landlords of the White Horse in Quidhampton, alleging that

“Enterprise Inns signed them up to a lease on a false prospectus and…made their business completely uneconomic and unsustainable”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 476.]

The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has confirmed that

“unsustainable rent demands…from Enterprise Inns”—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 476.]

led to the closure of the White Hart in South Harting. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has written to Enterprise Inns to inform it that the Abbots Mitre in Chilbolton was

“under threat largely due to unrealistic rents and changes in terms and conditions.”

The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) has written to Enterprise Inns asking it not to close the Lamplighters in Shirehampton.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has bemoaned Enterprise’s decision not to save the Little Owl, saying that

“a big company has failed to recognise a pub’s value to the community.”

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) was also concerned with saving the Owl, this time the one in Rodley, whose threatened closure he blamed on

“the mounting costs imposed by the building owners, Enterprise Inns”.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has recently written an excellent article in support of a mandatory free-of-tie option, has said of the sale of the Porcupine in Mottingham that the public were

“incensed that their right to bid for the pub has been bypassed deliberately by Enterprise Inns and LiDL”.

The right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) told a packed crowd that he would be joining the campaign to save the Red Lion in Sidbury, which Punch Taverns was planning to sell. There are many more examples. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) joined the campaign that successfully saved the Wheatsheaf. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) was particularly busy: she was trying to save both the Clifton and the Star. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) campaigned to save the Bittern. The list goes on and on and on.

Today we are faced with a choice. We can race to the aid of pubs in distress in our communities—pubs that are the symptoms of the great pubco disaster that plays out in every one of our constituencies and leads to job losses and the loss of a treasured community asset. We can sign the petitions; we can beg the pub companies to be fair this time; we can complain that the rents were too high or that the companies sold a false dream; we can rage against how they did not understand or seem to care about the impact on our communities; we can bemoan that they changed the rules; or, finally, we can act.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Televised sport, especially football, is very important to many pubs. I have had news today that a pub in my constituency is in difficulty because Sky Sports wanted to charge £1,250 a month to show Sky Sports in the pub. Has the hon. Gentleman had any thoughts as to how we can try to get sport into pubs more cheaply or increase competition so pubs can show sport, especially football?

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I know that many pubs have an agonising decision to make about whether they continue to show sport, which is incredibly expensive but attracts a lot of people through the door. I am sure he raises this question looking forward this weekend to Sheffield United playing Fulham on BT Sport, which can be watched in most good public houses at about 1 o’clock on Sunday afternoon.

The point the hon. Gentleman raises highlights the fact that the proposal we are discussing today is not a panacea for all the problems of the pub trade. If our motion is supported and the Government, with our support, swiftly bring forward regulation we can all back, it will not mean that all the problems will be solved and no more will be asked of Parliament. The sports issue is important and I will speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) about it, as he is putting forward Labour’s ideas on sport for the next manifesto.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I recently met a landlord who has managed to turn around a failing pub and increase the turnover. His reward is for all the extra money to be taken away in increased rent. That destroys the incentive for people to work hard and bring these pubs back.

[Toby Perkins]

That is an important point, and we hear it time and again. Given the economic difficulties and the difference between on-trade and off-trade alcohol, people understand that there are going to be difficult times for pubs. They will also recognise that some people are not suited to running a pub and, for whatever reason, are unable to make a decent fist of it. What sticks in the craw of most fair-minded people, however, is that the majority of those who take on major pubco tenancies end up earning under £10,000 a year. It is not a case of a few people doing very well, a reasonable number making a decent living and a small number failing; we are seeing the majority failing. Under the existing perverse disincentives, regardless of whether the pub does well or badly, the pub company does all right, and many people say that even when their trade grew they got hit with higher rents or higher prices that took away all the increased revenue they had generated. It is clear that there is a desperate imperative to act.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend recently rattled off a great long list of Members on both sides of the House who have rightly campaigned on this issue. Does he share my disappointment that as long ago as last January he brought a debate to this House during which the Government performed a U-turn saying they would seek to introduce a statutory code, which is absolutely necessary, and we had a lengthy consultation, but very little in terms of the legal framework has changed 12 months on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly do share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. My sense is that there is a lot of sympathy on this issue across the House and I want to bring people together rather than tear us apart. It is fair to say that a year ago the Government did a U-turn. I was not disappointed with that at all; I was delighted. They told the House that they were going to get on with the consultation. Many people were celebrating, and they went out drinking in the pubco pubs around the country that night. A few months later the consultation started and it finished about six months ago, yet despite the overwhelming response in favour of what we are proposing today and what the Government seemed minded to consider, we still have not actually had any action. We have not changed the situation on the ground for hard-pressed publicans and all those people who have seen their life-savings disappear and who want to know that the regime is going to improve for the people who follow them.

As I was saying, we can bemoan the situation, we can join the campaigns, or we can act. We can take court action on the cause of the closures. We have within our grasp today the opportunity to prove that actions speak louder than words and stand united across the House on behalf of our communities, but also on behalf of the hundreds who are looking to us to act. In just four days since Friday, 26,762 people have signed the 38 Degrees petition on the great British pub scandal.

CAMRA is an immensely important and well-respected body. It has the best interests of the pub in its heart and in its DNA; that is its raison d’être. It boasts a membership of almost 160,000, a staggering demonstration of the importance of real ale and pubs to people across our country. If I was seeking to make a political point, I might have mischievously pointed out that, with almost 160,000 members, CAMRA is bigger than the recently reported membership of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties combined, but as I said I wanted to be consensual, I am not going to mention that.

We all know that a fairer relationship between pub companies and their landlords is not a panacea that will end all the challenges faced by the trade. There are others and there will continue to be asks of us in Parliament even if we take action on this scandal today, but the fact that we cannot solve every problem does not mean we should not solve this major one. From the Federation of Small Businesses to the GMB, from CAMRA to the Forum of Private Business, from Fair Pint and the all-party save the pub group to Unite the Union, a diverse coalition of interests has consistently called for a new statutory code of regulation.

Let no one say that this House or the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee have rushed to judgment. Over four reports and eight exhaustive years, the Committee gave the major pub-owning companies every opportunity to make the changes that were needed to put their house in order, yet at every turn it found that the industry moved at a glacial pace, and always reluctantly, and only because of the scrutiny of the Committee.

Although I want to pay tribute to everyone involved in the work of the Select Committee and to say that I think the work done on pubco is a shining example of the Select Committee system at its best, it should not have to be the role of a Committee not only to investigate an issue but to be the body that constantly has to chase to see whether the assurances made to it have been kept. Following the final 2011 Select Committee report, there was widespread disappointment when the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) came to the House to defend opting for a self-regulatory regime. In January 2012 this House felt it had seen enough. We believed that voluntary regulation had failed and we voted unanimously for a statutory code, a vote that was ignored by the Government. Frankly, at every stage it has felt as though the Opposition and the Select Committee, ably supported by Members across the House, have had to make the running.

During oral questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in November 2012, there were three Labour pubco questions and it was suddenly announced that there would be an investigation into the success of self-regulation. A day before the Opposition day debate in 2013, the Government finally announced that they would consult on introducing a code to deliver a fairer balance between pub companies and their tenants. The response to the consultation was overwhelming: over 7,000 people responded, 96% were in favour of regulation, 67% were in favour of a mandatory free-of-tie option, 92% were in favour of open market rent assessment, and there was widespread support for a stronger independent adjudicator.

The strength of feeling was overwhelming, with 91% of respondents who ran a pub saying that the beer tie was one of the three biggest challenges facing their business, and more than nine in 10 saying they would take a free-of-tie option even if it meant paying a higher rent. It is therefore a little odd for the Government to say, as they do in their amendment, that they want to take more time to learn from the consultation. They chose the questions to ask and they got a big response. On almost all the big questions, the level of support was so overwhelming that even Robert Mugabe would have thought it was a bit one-sided, yet the Government then commissioned a report from London Economics, which critics felt was deeply flawed, apparently to try to persuade themselves against the view they appeared to have taken before their consultation. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the failure of the big pub companies than the desire to leave them on the part of the very people they consider to be their business partners. But for all the warm words expended on the Floor of this House and elsewhere, still nothing has changed in legal terms, and every week 26 pubs close.

If the Government do not introduce a Bill on this issue in the Queen’s Speech, it is impossible to imagine that there will be sufficient parliamentary time to pass one in this Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said on Sunday’s “The Andrew Marr Show”, if this Government fail the challenge set them today, everyone who feels strongly about this issue will know that, for all the rhetoric, only voting for a Labour Government will bring about the fairness that so many people so desperately want. Hon. Members will today have an opportunity to choose whether to be part of the solution or, I am sad to say, part of the problem.

There is no doubt that the existence of large pub companies, which own the vast majority of British pubs and often force their licensees to buy beer only from them, are distorting the market. As we consider their devastating impact, let us remember that 57% of Britain’s pubco publicans, people who often work among the longest hours of anyone in our communities, earn less than £10,000. The Federation of Small Businesses, brilliant advocates but hardly Marxist radicals, found in 2013 that a mandatory rent-only option would generate £78 million for the UK economy, that 98% of respondents would have more confidence in the success of their pubs and that almost 10,000 would take on extra staff or give their staff extra hours of work. Hon. Members will know that the FSB does not propose additional regulation lightly.

My own Chesterfield pubs survey mirrored many of those encouraging statistics, but also sounded a deadly warning about the cost of inaction, with many pubs saying that they were on the brink of closure and that increased rents and beer prices were key issues. This morning, the British Beer & Pub Association claimed that tied tenants’ pubs were cheaper, but that is far removed from the reality that people see in their community. At The Nags Head in Dunston in Chesterfield, I dealt with a Marston’s tenant who was competing with Marston’s managed houses just across the road that were selling the same product at up to £1 a pint less. The big pub companies and the BBPA will tell us, “Yes, there is the odd problem, but it is not typical.” They say, “You can’t offer general criticisms. We need to know about specific cases.” However, when we bring them specific cases they say, “Well, that’s just a one-off.” It seems that no evidence is good enough for them to recognise the reality of what people are seeing in their pubs. The BBPA and the pub companies are saying, “Mainly it’s just people who have failed in their businesses wanting to blame someone else.” I do not think that stands up to any sensible scrutiny.

Many businesses and industries have undergone tough times, particularly in the past five years or so, but they have not all universally claimed that they have been misled by their suppliers. Corner shops have closed, but MPs are not besieged by former Londis or Spar shopkeepers claiming they have been ripped off by Londis or Spar. People in business generally know the difference between tough market conditions and plainly misleading practices.

On that note, the BIS consultation last year was sobering reading for anyone who thought that the threat of regulation would cause the industry leopards to change their spots. It told of a married couple who produced a careful budget plan before signing a lease, only to find on the day they received the keys that their pub company increased the prices, meaning the couple can only afford to pay themselves one salary. We also heard about the couple who ploughed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with close attention and great interest, that I know he will want to take into account the fact that several hon. Members on both sides of the House also wish to take part?

[Toby Perkins]

That has been preoccupying me for several minutes, Mr Speaker. None the less, I would not like the couple who ploughed their life savings into acquiring a pub only to find the agreed credit order with their pubco was unilaterally withdrawn, leaving the business in ruins, to be left out of my contribution. I am glad that they found their way in.

Our motion calls for three key steps to be taken that will ultimately lead to a better future for Britain’s boozers. First, we need a mandatorv free-of-tie option. The beer tie, whereby landlords can buy products only from their pubco, works for some licensees, but for many others it means that they can buy only limited products at inflated prices. We want every landlord to have the choice of whether to go free of tie. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), whom we all miss terribly, although she will be back with us soon, has previously said that she is

“committed to stamping out abuse of the beer tie”.

Clearly, there is only one way to do that.

The Government have previously committed to the principle that no landlord should be worse off than they would be in an otherwise free-of-tie pub, but the behaviour of the pub companies suggests to me that that will not happen without allowing the market to decide. Members who are worrying that such a measure would go against their free market principles should have no fear. What the pubcos are defending is an old- fashioned closed shop, whereas what we are proposing is a genuinely competitive market solution that stands up for the rights of the small entrepreneur.

Secondly, we need independent rent reviews. When a new licensee takes over a pub, or when an existing rent contract expires and is renegotiated, there should be a fully transparent and independent rent review, completed by a qualified surveyor. That would deal with so many of the horror stories that we have heard in this debate and previously.

Finally, there must be a truly independent body to monitor the regulations and adjudicate in disputes between licensees and pubcos. There is little confidence in how PICAS, the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or PIRRS, the Pubs Independent Rent Review Scheme, are operating, with many of the people going through the PICAS process unhappy with the outcome.

Those are our tests, which are grounded in the principles of building a market that works, with rules to prevent restrictive practices and big companies unfairly using their size in an uncompetitive way. I know that Members across the House share this vision, so let us unite today behind this vital British industry and this vital British institution, and deliver the change that publicans, licensees, business groups, trade unionists, beer enthusiasts and the great British public are crying out for. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

That was the purpose of the Government consultation. Statutory regulation was necessary, and we consulted on how to do it. We are now evaluating the results of that process. The House will soon hear our conclusions on how to take the matter forward.

Let me repeat my appreciation for the work that has been done by Members from all parts of the House. I also thank the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, whose Chairman is here, and the various campaigning groups for their work on the matter. It would not be amiss to single out Fair Deal For Your Local, which is the campaign that has been mobilised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). As part of his campaign, he has brought together CAMRA, the Federation of Small Businesses and the GMB union as well as various other groups. We are talking about local and national groups across industry and across the country.

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for what he said about me being a statesman. If I may, I will press him on the timetable issue that has been raised. If he accepts that statutory regulation of some sort is necessary and the consultation overwhelmingly supports the majority of such aspects, will he at least commit to some sort of legislative action in the next Queen’s Speech, and will he say that we will not get to the end of this Parliament with nothing having changed?

[Vince Cable]

I cannot really add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are following a process. I am conscious of the legislative timetable, and he will remember—indeed it is the whole purpose of this debate—that the Government did not consult in an open-ended way over this question; we consulted on a specific proposal to introduce statutory regulation, and that is what we are responding to. Although I am conscious of the legislative timetable, I will not give a specific date on which this report will be concluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a debate that I never thought we would need to have again. Last year, we were given assurances that a statutory code would be introduced; a year later, there is still no sign of it. The motion reflects the sense of exasperation felt by Labour Members—and perhaps privately by many Government Members—about the lack of progress on this issue.

[Toby Perkins]

Does my hon. Friend share my fear that we will potentially be back here another year to have yet another debate? I am pencilling that into my diary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It is difficult to go into the maths in great detail in a forum such as this, but with respect, I do not see how we can make that comparison, because we are talking about different pubs in different places.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is difficult to make such comparisons. That is precisely why we are making the case that the only way to get genuine fairness is to ensure that people know what is a fair market rent. We can then say, “You can take that or you can take an alternative. The choice is yours.” That is the only way we will get a genuinely fair deal.

[Damian Hinds]

I have a lot of sympathy with that view and it is legitimate. We must not forget, however, that the owner of the pub also has an interest in that business thriving, and it must be an arrangement both sides are happy with. In one sense, the tie is just a way of sharing risk. It is a way of having rent that goes up when business is good, and down when business goes down. If we want to complain about how much money pub owners take from licensees, that is perfectly reasonable, but it is misleading to speak only about the tie and to say that if that went, all those problems would disappear. I do not believe they would.

I believe the single most important thing for regulation is to ensure the availability of proper financial and legal advice for new licensees. That must include someone giving advice who is able to understand and challenge what the pub company puts forward. It is called FMT—fair maintainable trade—and involves an estimate of what the pub can make, on which the rent and target return is based. If the licensee enters that arrangement with their eyes fully open, it is a commercial decision. Pub companies tell us that things are getting better and that pre-entry training, consultation and so on has improved, but it is difficult to tell that from the outside—I know the Select Committee has had more opportunity to look at that in detail.

Overall, we want more of a partnership approach between the owner of the pub and the licensee, and in the industry at its best that is of course what happens. For a long time, pulling pints has not been enough to survive and thrive in the licence trade. Such businesses are increasingly food driven, and they are trying to attract a wider range of customers while having to compete against managed houses that have different cost structures. There can be big advantages to being part of a wider group, such as consultancy and guidance on the development of the food business and menus. For some, there are other streams of business such as accommodation and retail opportunities, or—critically—improving purchasing programmes to improve margins.

It may be that as the industry evolves, the old tied model becomes less appropriate as more business goes to food and other products, and a franchising-type model may become more appropriate. It is arguably easier to do that and provide a full range of services if there are managed houses, as well as tenancies or leases. It is not for the Government to force such things through, but competition authorities can ensure there is sufficient space in the marketplace for operators who would provide a different model to licensees. The other crucial thing the Government can do to ensure that pub companies are fully mentally invested in long-term pub operations, rather than having an asset register of real estate, is make it harder to convert to residential property. If someone knows that the way they will make money out of a certain asset is by trading it well as a pub or a place where people come together to eat and drink, their minds will be focused on doing that more and more.

Where communities want to take over a pub, but that does not work out with the pub company and so on, I would like the Government to review continually the way the community right to bid works. We have a number of such instances in my constituency, and there is a great team working on the Anchor in Ropley. People are giving up a lot of time and putting in their expertise. That seems quite hard on occasion, and I hope the Government will keep that under review to ensure the process is as simple as possible.

In conclusion, we should beware of solutions, such as removing the tie, that appear to solve a lot of problems. Let us think back to the beer orders, and those who thought it was a great idea at the time in terms of breaking the vertical integration hold of brewers on individual pubs. I wonder what some of those people think about that now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I cannot say that it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. I pay tribute to him, to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), and to his Committee for their excellent work. It is a stunning example of a Select Committee. Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich West, I would rather we were not having another debate on pub companies. If we have to have one, I would rather that we were voting on Government proposals that do what the Committee has said the Government should do since 2011.

We will have to have at least one more debate on pub companies—I have shared that with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). When we have the response, we will need to bring it before the House and show that the majority of hon. Members support not only action but the only sensible and obvious action, namely the Committee’s suggestion of a market rent only option.

It is important to remember the history of pub companies. Let us be clear that we are debating pubcos because of the concerted lobbying of a number of organisations. Last year, I was pleased to bring those organisations together under the banner of the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign. Those 10 organisations—the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the GMB, the Guild of Master Victuallers, Fair Pint, the Pubs Advisory Service, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Supporting Licensees, CAMRA and Licensees Unite—have a membership of more than 2 million people. The campaign is now supported by no fewer than 206 MPs on both sides of the House. It is supported by the whole Opposition, so there is a clear majority for action.

I pay tribute to one MP who was a supporter of the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign—the wonderful Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, Paul Goggins, who is sadly no longer with us. I thank Paul for his support, which was yet another example of his commitment to social justice and a reform that we need if we are to have a fairer society.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills decided in 2011 not to do what we believed it would do. The reality is that we were outdone by some rather dodgy, behind-the-scenes lobbying. That is precisely why we set up the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign—to ensure that, with the might of the 10 organisations behind us, we could tackle that lobbying head-on, which is precisely what we have done. It was the freedom of information request submitted by the all-party parliamentary save the pub group that outed the lobbying and led to the first debate and the unanimous vote for action.

To be fair to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Government, the motion in January 2012 said that we must have a consultation in autumn 2012. It appeared that we would not have one, but it happened. The consultation showed what we knew it would show: that the problems are as bad as ever and that self-regulation has failed. The response was the debate a year ago and the announcement of the consultation.

As someone who has campaigned on pub companies for something like six or seven years, I of course share hon. Members’ frustration. I am more frustrated than anyone and wish that the Government had responded by now, but they have not. The only reason that I shall support the amendment is that, as the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has said, there has been last chance after last chance for the industry, so the Government should have a last chance to act. This is that last chance. I assure the Chair of the Committee and the House that if the Government do not announce swiftly that they will back the Committee’s solution, and in a time frame that allows for legislation, they can be assured that I will lead the criticism most loudly, because it is so long overdue. That is where we are and I hope we will get a decision as soon as possible. What we are seeing from the rather desperate lobbying by industry sources are the death throes of an unjustifiable and unregulated business model, and the last sorry chapter in one of the worst and most shameful episodes of corporate abuse and financial mismanagement that the UK corporate sector has ever seen.

The Secretary of State was right to say that the issue is not the existence of a tied model, and just to correct my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), it is not about the abolition of the tie. The Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign is very clear that it is about stopping abuse of the tie. That abuse is endemic because of reckless financial mismanagement, the acquisitions spree and the overvaluation scam that led to huge debts that are the reason why these companies are taking so much of the profit—often 75% and even 100% of pub profits—and stopping tenants and lessees making a living.

This is not about emotion or roses around the door, but cold, hard economics. While average tied rents are higher than free-of-tie rents—it should be the other way around, because the only justification for the tie is that if people agree to pay more for their beer they should pay a lower rent—beer prices go up and up and up, and the increases are above inflation every year.

I am delighted to see the Secretary of State back in his place. Does he know that Punch Taverns, which was the largest pub company, made an astonishing £2.271 billion in 10 years from selling on beer, simply by acting as a middle man, driving the price at the brewery down and selling on to tenants? I say to all my Conservative coalition partners—many are hugely supportive of this campaign, standing alongside the Federation of Small Business and the Forum of Private Business, and understand that this is about freeing up small businesses and giving them a chance—that this is about bringing in market forces. I say to those who are confused that this is not a market place that it working; it is an abuse of capitalism and a twisting of the market.

[Toby Perkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, though he has moved on slightly from the point I wanted to intervene on. On whether what we are now seeing are the death throes of a shameful part of the history of our corporate world, does he share my astonishment that the big pub companies are making the case that if their customers have the choice not to use them, they will not use them, and that that will cause them to collapse? Can he think of any other industry that would think it was credible to say, “The only reason our customers use us is because they have to, and if they don’t have to, we will collapse”?

[Greg Mulholland]

As the hon. Gentleman and, I think, many right hon. and hon. Members know, there has been an extraordinary campaign of misinformation on behalf of the big pub companies by their lobbyists the British Beer and Pub Association. I am sorry to say that it includes false statements that have been given even to the Select Committee: false statements about the reality of pub closure figures, and lots of unsubstantiated nonsense about how giving the right to a fair rent—that is all we are talking about; the right to choose whether to have a rent-only agreement—will somehow close breweries, create all sorts of disasters and close pubs. That must be stamped on. I urge all Members to read “Setting the Record Straight” by the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign, which puts those myths to bed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I am not at all surprised to hear that. I do not know the exact figure, but I do know that that is what has given rise to the problem, to the extent that it is one.

I recognise that there is a problem, and I want us to move on as quickly as we can, to help hard-working people who are keeping pubs going at the centre of communities. There are problems—I want to stress that point—but I want us to come up with a lasting solution that will not make matters worse. There are some benefits to the existing situation—I will come to the weaknesses in a minute. For example, a pubco can allow people who do not have a great deal of capital to enter the trade. They might be unable to afford to spend £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000 on buying a pub outright or to borrow that money. They also get their accommodation basically covered—certainly in most cases—while they run the pub, which gives them some security.

I do not recommend the tie at all, but I am concerned about what would happen to the rent if there were no tie. I am not speaking against reassessing the rent against a market level, but if we do that, what do we compare it with? If we are looking beyond pubs, we might look to McDonald’s, for example, or other franchise organisations. Is that a direct comparison? I am not quite sure how the proposal would work in detail—and of course, the devil is always in the detail. What about the repairing side of the lease? Will people with a fixed market rent be required to do more repairing of the fabric of the building than they are now? I am not throwing those questions out as stumbling blocks or trying to cause a problem, but they need answering.

[Toby Perkins]

I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman on that. The valuation would be done with transparency against the performance of other pubs. We need much greater transparency in the industry. Under the specific proposals that we have made today, the publican would be able to decide, knowing what a fair market rent was, whether they wanted to throw their lot in with the pub company, on the offer being made, or to opt out and buy their beer from wherever they chose. I hope that has answered his questions.

[Mr Robertson]

Not exactly, no, because how do we determine what the market rent level is? Is it the level for those with a tie or those without a tie? What about a repairing lease or a non-repairing lease? These are all details that need filling out, but I am not aware that they have been properly addressed. I want to deal with them and to make progress, but I am not sure we are there yet.

Tomlinson Report

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Guto Bebb]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, as it highlights the fact that this is not only an issue for those businesses highlighted in the Tomlinson report but something that we are seeing in our own constituencies.

James Nicholls concludes the article I mentioned by saying that the insolvency industry—by that he means accountants, solicitors, insolvency practitioners and so forth—needs

“to stop defending practices that on close and moral scrutiny just do not stand up to the ‘smell test’.”

I say, “Hear, hear,” to that.

I will conclude my comments by discussing Clifford Chance. I have no doubt, as I said in my opening remarks, that it is a reputable firm of solicitors, and make no comment about its behaviour, which I am sure is of the highest standard. However, by choosing Clifford Chance to undertake an internal review of the allegations made against the GRG, RBS is doing itself a disservice and is not creating any confidence in that review process.

Let us think of the relationship between Clifford Chance and RBS over the past couple of years. Clifford Chance worked on the sale of £80 billion of toxic UK commercial real estate by RBS, which was called Project Isobel internally; it acted on behalf of RBS on the sale of RBS Aviation Capital; it was instructed by RBS to deal with the recent IT outage suffered by RBS and NatWest; and it advised RBS on the LIBOR scandal.

I have no doubt that Clifford Chance feels that it could act impartially on the review, but businesses up and down the country genuinely feel that they have been treated badly by the GRG and RBS and they need to feel confident that the bank is taking their concerns seriously. I would argue that the impression given of a conflict of interests between Clifford Chance and RBS is enough of a reason for RBS to think again and appoint another firm to undertake the review. I welcome the fact that RBS is willing to undertake an internal review, and it has argued that it is creating an independent internal review; but that independence must be beyond reproach. Given the commercial relationship that I have highlighted between Clifford Chance and RBS, it is difficult to make the case that the review will be truly independent and will be able to gain the confidence of the business community. I ask the Minister to convey my concerns on that matter to RBS.

Thank you, Sir Roger, for allowing me to speak for so long on this issue, as I am aware that other Members wish to contribute. My concerns are simple. I believe that the issues highlighted in the Tomlinson report are worthy of consideration, and that it is good that the regulatory authorities are investigating on the basis of the report. But it is also important that Members of this House from all parts of the country highlight their experiences with the global restructuring group. RBS is not, in my view, the only bank to have behaved badly, but RBS and the GRG are the focus of the current report.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way just as he is concluding his remarks, which have been very thoughtful. He is right to say that the GRG might not be the only perpetrator of this kind of behaviour, but it is the focus of the report. Does he think that the evidence that he has heard from colleagues and has read in the report is enough to say not just that there might have been bad practice but that, as Tomlinson appears to allege, systematic fraud is being perpetrated by RBS—is that the case that he is making?

[Guto Bebb]

I would be extremely wary of using the word fraud. In my view, there has undoubtedly been systematic bad behaviour and I could speak at some length about West Register, which is part of RBS, and the way in which assets have been taken from businesses by the GRG and West Register—there is a conflict there. However, even with the privilege afforded by being in the House, I would be careful about using the word fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, as we discuss a subject that is vitally important for small business owners across the country. As someone who was a small business owner before coming into this place, I like nothing more than the opportunity to reflect on what is happening with small businesses and, of course, the vital relationship between small businesses and their banks.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate. Everyone in the House will know how much of his parliamentary energy he has dedicated to the cause of small business redress, most notably through his campaigning on the interest rate swaps issue—an issue about which he and the Opposition share many concerns.

This debate and this report go to the heart of several big questions that Government and society need to address. What are banks for? Whom should they serve? What is the role for Government in that relationship? Where does the balance lie for banks in protecting their own interests and those of their customers when a conflict is seen to exist? A key question is not whether there has been any wrongdoing, but whether, as has been alleged in the Tomlinson report, there has been systematic fraud by Britain’s largest bank. We need to be clear that that is what Tomlinson is suggesting in his report. It is an incredibly powerful and potentially huge allegation from someone who sits at the heart of Government as an entrepreneur in residence at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The report also poses questions about how a responsible Government should balance the need to expose wrongdoing and scrutinise questionable practices, which has come across loud and clear in this debate, with the need for a measured and considered approach to evidence gathering, particularly when the allegations are as serious as those made in the Tomlinson report. The report is clear in its call for a change in the culture of British banking. Indeed, Tomlinson echoes concerns and remedies that the Opposition have already called for.

Mr Tomlinson is a much respected entrepreneur who has won admiration from across the business sector for his own business success as a British manufacturing success story, but he is involved in a long-running and bitter dispute with RBS. Given the way in which his report changed between the original draft that was sent to RBS and its subsequent publication, many people feel disquiet about the independence of the report and the strength of the evidence base that led to a report as hard-hitting and potentially damaging to UK plc as this one.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has said and few will disagree, there were many things wrong with banking practices and many causes for concern about the way in which the relationship between businesses and the banks has been conducted in recent years and continues to be conducted today. That was why my hon. Friend publicly called for those guilty of LIBOR rigging to face jail, and why Labour has led the way in calling for decisive action on the mis-selling of interest rate swaps. We have been very much with the hon. Member for Aberconwy on that. We have been resolute in calling for speedier action to bring about closure and settlement for companies that were mis-sold products, and concerned at the way in which the Financial Conduct Authority has failed to ensure that the banks complied with timetables that they had promised to adhere to. At this stage, I would like to place on the record my admiration for the work done by Bully-Banks to highlight some of these issues and to ensure that the matter is kept under the glare of public scrutiny. Indeed, as we meet today, banks have paid out less than 3% of the amount that they have set aside for compensating the victims of that scandal.

Those concerns were also why Labour tabled an amendment to what was then the Financial Services Bill that would require Ministers to bring forward proposals to help firms to pursue collective redress against the mis-selling of swaps, which the Government combined on to vote down.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does my hon. Friend agree that tailored business loans, which are currently not included in the review, should be considered as well?

[Toby Perkins]

I think that many important points have been raised during the debate and that is certainly one of them.

We share the disappointment at the continued excesses in bank bonuses and the failure of the Government’s bank bonus levy to yield the returns that it promised. After all, we are having this debate just a day after publication of a survey showing that managing directors at banks in London are expecting a 44% rise in bonuses for 2013.

I turn now to some of the contributions made by hon. Members to the debate. Unsurprisingly, the hon. Member for Aberconwy made a series of significant contributions to the debate that he initiated. It was interesting that he reflected on the fact that Tomlinson had spoken to the all-party group on interest rate swaps. I was surprised to discover that during this process, Tomlinson never spoke to RBS and never gave it an opportunity to put the allegations that he was making in an alternative light.

The hon. Gentleman refused to take the bait that I generously offered him to say that the behaviour highlighted in the Tomlinson report would have verged on the illegal. I think that he understates the case. Tomlinson is fairly unequivocal. He is clearly alleging systematic fraud on the part of Britain’s largest bank—in effect, it is feathering its own nest by bringing down businesses that without the intervention of the bank would have survived and thrived.

[Guto Bebb]

It is fair to say that the allegations in the report are extremely serious. That is why, in my initial remarks, I welcomed the fact that the Government have referred the report to the relevant regulatory authorities—because I think that it is important that those allegations are looked at very carefully. However, the purpose of this debate was to highlight the significant effort in the media to portray Mr Tomlinson as a gentleman with a vendetta against RBS. The opportunity today was to highlight the fact that constituency MPs have seen behaviour by RBS and the GRG that is identical to that highlighted in the report.

[Toby Perkins]

There is no question about it: we have heard a lot of evidence of that sort. I agree, of course. I welcome the fact that the Government have referred the report on, but it is hard to see how they could have done anything else, on the basis of the strength of the report. The way in which the situation has been handled poses questions about judgment in terms of the seriousness of the allegations being made.

The matter will now be looked at by the Financial Conduct Authority. We are talking not about an external report to which the Government have to respond, but about a report written by someone at the heart of Government, which is apparently based on anecdotal evidence and which does not give RBS much of a right of reply. That is why I have questions.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy raised a legitimate question about the impact of the charges levied by banks on businesses that are already struggling with cash flow, and the powerlessness that businesses feel when they enter the restructuring process. In some cases, a business enters the process knowing that it is in trouble and feels as though the process is making the situation worse. I also recognise that Tomlinson highlights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) has said, the fact that some businesses did not consider themselves to be in crisis until the moment they entered the process. The report raises many questions and we need to hear the Government’s response. It is important that we continue to put pressure on the banks, and indeed it is hard to see how that pressure will be alleviated.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) highlighted suspect practices by RBS that were experienced by a business in her constituency. She repeated Tomlinson’s claim that systematic fraud was taking place. Interestingly, she asked the Minister to explain why he was certain that such practices were not occurring. Given that the report has come from the heart of Government, I imagine that he must be pretty clear that such fraud existed. I do not want to prejudge his comments, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say on that. My hon. Friend also made a significant point about the imbalance and unfairness of the relationship between banks and firms that are battling to stay afloat and do not have the resources to take on a major bank.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway raised an example from Barclays that it made it clear that such practices are not confined to RBS, although the Tomlinson report was entirely about RBS. My hon. Friend focused on businesses being driven into distress. He said that RBS was 80% state controlled. Although RBS is state owned, it has become clear under successive Governments that the bank is not state controlled; it is run in its own way. Perhaps we need to consider the fact that an organisation owned by Government is not always working in the best interest of British businesses and UK plc.

As I have said, we share many of Mr Tomlinson’s concerns and conclusions, and I now turn to the areas on which we agree. The Tomlinson report recognises the fundamental faults of the lack of competition in the British banking system, on which the Opposition wholeheartedly agree. Some 89% of small businesses are locked into the big five banks. The report also speaks of the need to change banking culture so that banks see small businesses as partners rather than merely cash cows, and so that the two can grow locally together. Such a model would not only be good for small businesses but lead to a stronger and more durable overall economy. That is why Labour proposes a new generation of local banks based on the Sparkassen model to add genuine competition on the high street. That would create a major new player that would not operate according to the same lending models as all the other banks, and would boost local decision making.

Although net lending has fallen every year during the crisis, our biggest European competitor, Germany, has seen an increase in lending over the same time. After the crash in 2008, a crisis occurred in bank lending, and far from being improved in the years since, it has continued to constrict. Tomlinson is right to say that we need greater competition. Alongside the new local entrants to the banking market, we are calling for greater bank account portability to ease the path into the market. Even a huge bank such as Santander found it exceptionally difficult and expensive to gain a foothold in the UK market.

We also agree that the culture of selling additional products and services alarmingly supersedes that of best serving customers’ needs, as was demonstrated by the interest rate swap scandal. Britain is currently facing a mutual crisis of confidence in small business lending, and in the relationship between banks and businesses more widely. A survey of members of the Federation of Small Businesses found that more than half of small businesses believe that banks do not care about small businesses, and, similarly, banks fear lending money to businesses. Such mutual distrust is one of the reasons why we have had the slowest recovery for 100 years. The Tomlinson report will, indisputably, further damage the confidence between banks and businesses. The Government have a grave responsibility to ensure that, when such damaging criticisms are made, every possible step has been taken to verify and scrutinise those criticisms before the Government endorse them.

In that context, we have significant reservations about a report that contains such serious allegations of systematic and widespread corporate fraud. There are concerns that, at best, the Tomlinson report will not be seen as being truly impartial. We have reservations about the Government’s endorsement of the report when its evidence base has not been subject to any public or, as far as we are aware, departmental scrutiny. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills told the House during recent Business, Innovation and Skills questions that Tomlinson’s

“accusations are echoed in the report published by Sir Andrew Large, who was appointed by RBS.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 1080.]

However, the Tomlinson report states that businesses rarely survive the global restructuring group process, and that they never come out again. Tomlinson highlights the fact that

“a whistleblowing ex-RBS banker confirmed that they could not think of any occasion in which a business entered RBS’ Global Restructuring Group and came back into local management.”

The report by Sir Andrew Large showed that 50% of businesses traded out of the GRG, and that only about 10% became insolvent, so it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State could use the Large report as a justification for the publication of the Tomlinson report.

The Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills appeared to be supportive of what the hon. Member for Aberconwy said, so I do not know whether his contribution has the Secretary of State’s implicit support. The hon. Members for Aberconwy and for Wells (Tessa Munt) certainly appeared to be working collaboratively. The allegations in the Tomlinson report are incredibly serious, and they clearly carry the stamp of Government.

If Labour had been in office when the issue came to prominence, we would not have been as quick as the Secretary of State has been to rush out this departmental report, about which there are many questions to answer. I am told that if Tomlinson had chosen to speak to RBS, he could have been referred to companies such as Samsonite, Fairline, Independent Slitters Ltd and many others, which would have told him that the GRG process was positive for them. He chose not to do so, and as a result the report represents serious concerns but does not reflect all points of view in a balanced way.

Had Labour been in office, we would have ensured that the FCA, which is the appropriate body to investigate such grave allegations, was immediately commissioned to conduct a full and proper inquiry before the trust between banks and businesses could be damaged by a sensational report such as the Tomlinson report. I do not suggest that bad practices do not exist or that we have not been pushing the banks to identify where they have failed their business customers, but we consider that the anecdotes in the report provide a pretty tenuous basis for such serious allegations to be made with the stamp of Government approval.

With that in mind, I ask the Minister to address the following questions. Was the Secretary of State aware of Mr Tomlinson’s ongoing dispute with RBS when he was commissioned to produce the report? If so, what assessment did the Secretary of State make of any potential conflict of interest before giving it the departmental stamp of approval? Why did the Secretary of State trumpet the report as independent when it was produced in his Department by someone with a close interest in both the party and the issues under discussion? Why were earlier references to malpractice at Lloyds removed from the final version of the report so that it focused purely on RBS, the bank with which Mr Tomlinson is in dispute, and why was RBS not shown the final report, nor given a chance to submit evidence to it?

The report is sadly lacking in detailed referencing and evidence. Given that the basis of the report seems to be that many of the businesses will have collapsed—presumably, that is on the public record—will the Department be publishing detailed citations for where the allegations have come from? Is the Minister personally satisfied that due diligence was carried out by his Department before it promoted the report? Does he agree that if the report’s claim that RBS was systematically involved in deliberately distressing businesses that would, without its intervention, have thrived, that would be a matter of corporate fraud on a huge scale, and such an allegation should be thoroughly investigated before being produced in a Government-backed report? Does he think that the appropriate level of scrutiny was given to the report prior to publication?

Finally, as we head towards a general election, I suspect we will hear from Ministers why they think the way in which the Secretary of State operated was not the way things would have been done under a Conservative Government. If we had a purely Conservative Government, would they have handled the report in the same way? If not, in what way would it have been different?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I will start by welcoming you to the Chair, Sir Roger, and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this important debate. I will try to address the concerns raised, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions in this debate.

SMEs are a vital part of the UK economy; they contribute significantly to economic growth. Access to finance is important for funding investment, ensuring businesses reach their full potential, and for facilitating new business start-ups. As hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate have made clear, it is essential that our banking system works in the interests of SMEs and treats them fairly.

I will turn specifically to the report. Lawrence Tomlinson is one of BIS’s two entrepreneurs in residence. His appointment was made by BIS officials, not by Ministers, following an open competition for which there were more than 200 applicants. Mr Tomlinson is independent of BIS, but, as an entrepreneur in residence, he has the scope to explore and raise matters that he regards as important to SMEs. His report was prepared in that context, so it was not commissioned by the Department or by Ministers. It was a personal report by Mr Tomlinson; it is not a Government report.

I will deal with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), which were all in the same vein. He referred to the report coming from the heart of Government, so it is worth restating that this is a personal report by Mr Tomlinson. It is not a Government report, so Mr Tomlinson was free to publish whatever he saw fit. No Ministers or officials were involved. What was eventually published by Mr Tomlinson was entirely his own choice. It was also his own choice whether to involve the banks that he refers to in the report and what resources he wanted to use.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Member for Aberconwy referred a few moments ago to the smell test. I do not know whether the Minister is attempting to distance himself from the report, but anyone applying the smell test would say that an entrepreneur in residence at the heart of BIS was the person selected by BIS officials to do a report that was promoted and welcomed by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It does not feel independent.

[Sajid Javid]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The value of the report is that it is entirely independent. It was done by Mr Tomlinson in a personal capacity. He was free to look at any of the issues that he saw as important to the SME sector. I will look at the important issues he has raised, but at this stage I want to make it clear that it was a personal report by Mr Tomlinson and not a Government report. Once that is taken into account, the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked become clear.

The allegations made in Mr Tomlinson’s report are deeply concerning, and they have raised questions as to whether banks—particularly RBS—are treating their customers appropriately. We expect all banks to act with integrity across all the business activities that they engage in. Separately, as we have heard, the new management of RBS also commissioned Sir Andrew Large to conduct an independent review to examine RBS’s support to SMEs and the decisions that they make on SME lending. Following that review, a report was published on 25 November, and RBS has committed to implement its recommendations in full.

The reports, which were not Government reports, contained some very serious allegations, as we have heard from various hon. Members, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy. It is now the responsibility of the Financial Conduct Authority to undertake investigations into allegations surrounding RBS’s lending practices and treatment of small businesses.

The FCA has now considered both reports. It has notified RBS that an independent skilled person will be appointed in accordance with the FCA power under section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to review the allegations made against RBS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My understanding is that the FCA’s investigation through the skilled person will examine all allegations in the report and some similar allegations in Sir Andrew Large’s report.

I also mention, as my hon. Friend did, the Clifford Chance report commissioned by RBS and described by RBS as independent. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about Clifford Chance; I listened carefully to what he said. Although it is for RBS to decide whom to appoint, I will ensure that his concerns are conveyed to RBS.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) discussed the future direction of RBS. He and others will be aware that on 1 November this year, the new management of RBS set out a new direction for the bank, which will lead RBS to boost the British economy rather than burden it. It will also enable RBS to focus on its core British business of supporting British families and companies. Ross McEwan, RBS’s new chief executive, has committed to improving RBS’s lending performance across the UK and announced the ambitious goal of becoming the No. 1 bank for small businesses and enterprises throughout the UK, as measured by a newly created independent survey to be run by the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce.

The Tomlinson report also recommended that state-owned banks be split into small banks focusing solely on retail and commercial lending as a means of improving competition in the banking sector. The Government are already committed to greater competition and diversity in the UK banking sector both locally and nationally, which is why we asked the Independent Commission on Banking to investigate competition issues in the UK banking sector as part of its work.

The ICB uncovered a number of issues, and we are taking forward its recommendations in the Banking Reform Bill and through other legislation. We are removing the competitive advantage that big banks get from the “too big to fail” system by introducing ring-fencing in the Bill. We have also secured a new seven-day switching service delivered by industry that will allow both consumers and SMEs to switch businesses accounts far more easily, and we have introduced a strong competition objective for the regulator, the FCA, to help it promote competition much more effectively.

The new regulators have already introduced big changes on the regulatory side to make it easier for new banks to enter the market, grow and compete with the large incumbent banks. We are also taking further action in the Banking Reform Bill by creating a new payments regulator to ensure that new and smaller banks have fair and transparent access to the payment system, and giving the Prudential Regulation Authority a secondary competition objective to strengthen its role in ensuring competitive banking markets. The Bill will also give the FCA further competition powers.

Hon. Members mentioned the future of Lloyds and RBS. At the national level, both RBS and Lloyds are in the process of divesting part of their UK banking businesses, creating new challenger banks. The Government have taken the first steps to return Lloyds to the private sector and are actively considering options for further share sales. The reintroduction of the TSB brand on the high street is great news for competition. That action is further evidence of the Government’s stated aim not to be a permanent investor in the UK banking sector.

The Government do not believe that there is a strong case for breaking up the core operations of any bank in which we have a stake. The cost of reorganisation would be attributable to the banks, and consequently to the taxpayer. The time required to execute such a reorganisation would also be lengthy, further delaying the Government’s ability to return the banks to private ownership.

Before I conclude, I turn to a couple of the other issues raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend had concerns about insolvency, relating not just to the Tomlinson report but to the process more generally. His comments show how much he has researched the subject, so I take what he said seriously. He will know that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the lead on insolvency issues, but I will ensure that my colleagues in BIS are aware of his concerns. Perhaps, if he finds it useful, I could arrange a meeting for him with the relevant Minister to discuss this important issue.

My hon. Friend will know, however, that insolvency procedures can be commenced only by a court order, and that the whole process is subject to supervision by courts. It is deliberately designed to ensure transparency, make the process legitimate and provide a forum for any disputes, as they often occur throughout such a fought process. I will take the issue forward for him and see whether more can be done to listen to his concerns.

[Toby Perkins]

I suspect that the extent to which the Minister has attempted to distance himself and the Government from the report speaks volumes. Does he believe that how BIS and the Business Secretary have handled the Tomlinson report and its impact on RBS’s performance is ultimately helpful to this Government’s future success, or does he think that it should have been handled differently?

[Sajid Javid]

I say again for the record—I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman—that this is a personal report by the entrepreneur in residence at BIS. That has always been the Government’s position, and neither BIS Ministers, Treasury Ministers or any other Ministers have ever said anything different. Nevertheless, it is an important report. He will know that the entrepreneurs in residence initiative was started by this coalition Government in order to allow further analysis of what can be done to help the SME sector.

In that vein, we welcome the Tomlinson report, which is why we take its allegations seriously and why we are pleased that the FCA has acted quickly so far to consider them. This debate has shown how much parliamentary interest there is in the issue on behalf of our constituents, due to the number of small businesses in our constituencies that have come to us with similar concerns.

Autumn Statement

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend and neighbour has been a champion of small businesses. I am delighted that the change that we have brought about today with a £1,000 discount for shops and high streets will mean that in Congleton, Holmes Chapel and Middlewich, the people whom she represents will get a better deal.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The self-congratulatory tone of the Chancellor and Government Members would be slightly less nauseating if it was not for the fact that people in Chesterfield are £1,600 a year worse off despite the fact that they are in work. As he reads out the fall in unemployment numbers, he will know that a huge number of those in jobs are under-employed. It used to be that going from unemployment to work made people better off. Does it not sicken him as much as it sickens me that on his watch people come to my constituency surgeries saying, “I am now in work and I am no better off than I was when I was on the dole”?

[Mr Osborne]

First, we are making work pay, through the changes to the welfare system, so that people are better off in work than out of work. This is the last Labour question and perhaps this is what the Opposition stand for: they would rather have people on welfare—[Interruption.] They would rather have an economic plan that was destroying jobs and putting taxes on business up than a plan which in his constituency has delivered a 21% fall in unemployment and a 14% fall in youth unemployment. He should get up and support the plan that is delivering that for his constituents.