Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I find it astonishing that no Opposition Member is prepared to congratulate the Government on the announcement of the £20 billion that we are putting into the NHS because of increasing demand.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Chancellor has been an outspoken advocate of a fairer distribution of regional spending. Has he read the letter that we sent him in late July? Will he commit to the Transport for the North strategic investment priorities in his forthcoming Budget?

[Robert Jenrick]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has my hon. Friend’s letter. Over this Parliament, we will spend more central Government funding per capita on transport in the north than in, for example, London or the south-east. We will consider carefully the business case for Northern Powerhouse Rail when we receive it from Transport for the North later in the year.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

No, I will not give way.

I went back last year to look at it again, and yes it was 15-year-old technology. It could be better now; it could be faster. What happens in Detroit, the centre of the American motor industry? In Ontario, across a very difficult and constrained border, tougher than Dover, there is an entire industry supplying parts, components and engines for that motor car industry. It operates across a border that has tariffs on it, too.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am short of time.

The simple truth is they operate even where there are tariffs, and we are proposing a non-tariff arrangement—there would be no tariffs here; the primary concerns will not be the collection money but other things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who has put on the record a great deal of fact and truth about the way in which the Northern Ireland issue has been treated in the negotiations and by the negotiating parties. What he missed out in his remarks was that this was not an issue until the Varadkar Government were elected. The expectation was that there would be an invisible customs frontier in Northern Ireland. That was confirmed by Bertie Ahern when he gave interviews on the subject. It was confirmed by the head of the Irish customs organisation when he gave evidence to the Irish Dáil. It was confirmed by Jon Thompson, the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, when he initially gave evidence to the Treasury Committee. This was not an issue until it was made an issue.

We are being asked to believe two extraordinary things. The first is that the Irish Republic itself might put infrastructure at the border of Northern Ireland, when the only reason that the Irish Republic recognises that there is a frontier between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is that it signed the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement. Secondly, when President Juncker appeared in front of the Dáil a few months ago and was pressed to give an assurance that he would not force the Republic to put infrastructure at the border, he more or less gave that assurance. In fact, it was perfectly clear that he was not going to say, “We will force you to put infrastructure at the border,” so it is clear that the EU is not going to force anyone to put infrastructure at the border.

It is still the policy of the Government that we might leave even without a withdrawal agreement, on WTO terms. Under such circumstances, we will not put any infrastructure at the Irish border in Northern Ireland, and we will challenge the Irish Republic and the EU Commission not to do the same in the interests of peace in Northern Ireland. It is perfectly possible to manage an infrastructure-free customs frontier in Northern Ireland, and that is what will happen. It is pure obstinacy on the part of the Commission that it will not negotiate with the United Kingdom a free trade agreement on the basis of making an agreement with the whole United Kingdom, instead of excluding Northern Ireland.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is making some very good points. I certainly do not argue that we should be members of customs union, but the Freight Transport Association recently gave the example of a situation whereby a trailer full of 40 different consignments goes from Birmingham to Belfast, and then goes into 40 different white vans in Belfast. How does my hon. Friend propose that we would meet our responsibility to pay customs in such a situation?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am immensely grateful. May I encourage the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) to draw his remarks to a close? He is within his time, but a lot of other people want to speak and I am being pressed by people who, quite understandably, want time. If the hon. Gentleman—with his brilliant eloquence and pithiness—could wrap up in a minute or two, that would be marvellous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I could always listen at length, but we must move on.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I want to speak against new clause 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) tabled.

Among many points my constituents have made to me in the past few weeks, they have asked why the House cannot work together on Brexit. I suppose the simple answer is that our biggest challenge—what divides us most—is not acceptance of the result of the referendum on 23 June 2016, but its practical interpretation as the basis for our future relationship with the EU.

Parliament is bound by our promise on Brexit, but perhaps it also needs to accept some key principles, which reflect the promises that were made during the referendum campaign. Where better to look for those promises than the voice of the official body that argued for Brexit—Vote Leave? On trade, the Vote Leave manifesto was clear:

“We take back the power to make our own trade deals”.

On that basis, it is clear that we must not remain part of a customs union as that would prevent us from directly negotiating and implementing trade deals. It is therefore strange that being part of a customs union seems to be Labour party policy, which goes right against the clear mandate that the people gave us.

There were other commitments in the Vote Leave manifesto, for example,

“one thing which won’t change is our ability to trade freely with Europe.”

On that basis, it is fair for businesses, and the people whose jobs rely on those businesses, to assume that nothing will change. Of course, Members have made the point that other countries manage to have just-in-time supply chains when they have a customs border, but most countries have not been part of a trading environment for 44 years in which they have not carried the burden of those complexities.

We know from Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage that businesses have a choice to station themselves here or move jobs to other parts of the EU because extra costs will ensue if they do not: costs for customs checks and for checks on standards. I believe that staying part of a customs union is not consistent with the mandate that the people gave us, but that the White Paper, as articulated by the Prime Minister, deals with our obligation to leave the EU while also minimising the costs of comparative advantage. The House should support it.

[Mr Speaker]

Two minutes are preferable to three.

Banking Sector Failures

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman speaks well to that subject. Banks should exist to provide the capital that businesses need to scale up and become bigger, albeit for their own commercial interest, but I am sorry to have to say that is not how it works in this country.

The impact of the events on John Roseman was far more than just commercial. They had a devastating effect on him, his health—as I witnessed when I met him—and family, and his employees and their families. John’s business was stolen from him, and I make no apology for using that word.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that the common factor in a lot of these businesses was that they had assets or that the people had personal assets? The bank chose them deliberately, but then denied year after year that GRG was a profit centre, despite the fact that the skilled persons report determined that in 2011, GRG made £1.1 billion in profit on a turnover of £1.3 billion.

[Stephen Kerr]

There can be no doubt about the nature of GRG’s operations. To say anything other would be a deceit about the part played by GRG. I apologise for having to use such unparliamentary language to describe the operations of a business, but that is the case too often in the examples that so many Members have had brought to us.

There was no failure in John’s business or model—they were a success. His business’s products and services were in demand. His customers certainly had not deserted him. But the Royal Bank of Scotland brought him down for its own purposes. He has still to get anything like an appropriate settlement in compensation for the way he was treated. John is cut from rock and the Royal Bank of Scotland should be warned that it can try to close his case, as it has told him, but he will not give up and will not go away. He wants justice and recompense, and he should be treated with more respect than he has been so far. As his Member of Parliament, I will support him as best I can.

John’s case is only an example; there are so many others. He suffered severe trauma. His health has been affected through stress and anxiety. He has suffered heart problems; he had heart surgery the week before his daughter was married. His marriage and his friendships have suffered. He said to me:

“My wife found it especially hard having to deal with the day to day situation and our marriage suffered seriously and was lucky to survive the constant pain, anger and aggression I was going through watching our family business and assets being stolen from us.”

That is the human cost, along with the human cost to his employees, his team and their families.

I repeat that, at the stroke of a pen, directors and shareholders suddenly have no voice and no right of reply, even if they never missed a payment but honoured their obligations. It is that easy. The customer gets no warning and has no ability to appeal. That can happen whether or not the valuation on which the supposed contract breach is based is correct.

Who determines that a property’s value has fallen? It is usually a surveyor from one of the bank’s panel of firms, which depend on banks for their business. They are hardly independent. Hypothetically, if a bank had a liquidity problem and needed to raise funds quickly, all it would have to do is engineer a bogus breach of contract—the rest would be history. Sadly, many banks are commonly accused of having done exactly that in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

As we can see, it is not just the bank involved—surveyors, LPA receivers and administrators all play their part. It is therefore imperative that those practitioners and their regulators are held to account for the roles they played—and continue to play—in the destruction of British businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his kind words. Although it is nice to have a report with my name on the front, it was written with co-operation and contributions from many people in the all-party group and outside it. It is wonderful to be associated with such an effective group, which has been one of the key bodies responsible for today’s debate. We would not be here without the all-party group. I have been associated with it for only a few short months, so I pay tribute to the many people who came before me. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for sponsoring today’s debate and for their superb contributions, which set out clearly the banking failures and abuses.

I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to start and build a business over 25 years, starting from small beginnings and building it into a large national organisation. I could not have done that without the support of banks, who in the main provide a good, vital service to businesspeople across the UK.

Businesses will often try to bend or break the rules—it is part of the entrepreneur’s DNA. Sometimes that can have a positive effect: creative destruction that finds new, more effective and cheaper ways of doing things that benefit consumers. Rule breakers such as Uber and Amazon present constant challenges to rule makers as regulations have to play catch-up to deal with new and better ways of working. However, sometimes breaking the rules can be very bad, particularly when they are broken so badly and with such immorality by those within an effective UK banking oligopoly of banks that are too big to fail, too big to sue and apparently too big to regulate.

In the last 10 years, particularly at Lloyds-HBOS and RBS, we have witnessed the most disgraceful, shameful episode in British banking’s 500-year history. Despite persistent and strenuous denials, those banks broke the rules to such an extent that they have been found guilty respectively of fraud and systematic mistreatment of their own business customers, which has led to the destruction of thousands of jobs, businesses and lives. In business, business is one’s life—it is not just about money. Those banks not only denied wrongdoing but used all the money, influence and power at their disposal to shut down and discredit anyone who tried to draw attention to their malpractice.

In 2013, Yorkshire businessman Lawrence Tomlinson, then the entrepreneur in residence at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, was the first to discover and report on the abuses of thousands of SMEs at RBS and its notorious restructuring division, GRG. Incredibly, its response to his report was to withdraw banking facilities to his extensive business empire—he was an RBS customer—putting thousands of jobs at his enterprises at risk. It even tried to convince its Coutts subsidiary to withdraw the mortgage on his home.

It is individuals such as Mr Tomlinson, Paul and Nikki Turner—they are in the Public Gallery—and my constituents, the Welsbys, as well as journalists and those involved in the all-party group, who have brought abuses to light, not our regulator. Why should it be down to individuals to hold these people to account? We are also grateful to some eminent people in the legal world, including the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, and barristers Richard Samuel and Jeff Golden, for their support in drafting the report, which gives it so much credibility.

Two months after the Tomlinson review, the banking regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, commissioned a full “skilled persons” report, which was completed in September 2016. It decided not to publish the report, at least in part—according to leaked minutes of the board meeting—because of concerns that it might be taken to court by RBS. Instead, 12 months later, it published a summary of the report, which inexplicably reversed the principal emphasis from demonstrating “widespread inappropriate treatment” to

“isolated examples of poor practice.”

How can that be?

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With 90% of our business lending under the control of our big four banks, it is vital that our regulators hold this oligarchy to account. Yet, despite the banks’ chequered history of deception and denial, they are still allowed by the FCA to carry out their own internal compensation schemes and inquiries. There is little sign of action from the regulators or our fraud or crime agencies. Our regulators should be fearless protectors of banking customers and consumers, but actually they appear to be defenders of the banking faithful.

There was an interesting conversation at our launch last night. One of our officers spoke to one of the senior executives at Lloyds about our work—we are determined to call a spade a spade—who said, “Well, our good will towards you is wearing a little thin.” Our regulators, our Members of Parliament and our Ministers do not require Lloyds-HBOS’s good will to hold it to account.

The “Project Lord Turnbull” report, which the APPG published recently, makes serious allegations of fraud and cover-up against senior directors of Lloyds and HBOS. Those allegations must be investigated. I will name those people again: Andy Hornby, the chief executive; Sir Dennis Stevenson, the former chairman; James Crosby; Peter Cummings; Sir Ron Garrick; Mike Ellis; Peter Hickman; Hugh McMillan; Stewart Livingston; Ian Goodchild; Steven Clark; Andrew Scott and Tom Angus.

Those people must be questioned and investigated, as must those connected with those crimes, such as Rory McAlpine, the solicitor for the board of HBOS and then for the board of Lloyds Banking Group, who was repeatedly sent evidence of the fraud by Paul and Nikki Turner, and even confirmed to the Turners in writing that if their allegations were confirmed, that would amount to criminal conduct. He attended, I believe, six of the Turners’ 22 eviction hearings in the Cambridge county court—an odd venue, one might think, for the deputy chairman of one of the UK’s largest law firms. His comments in the Turnbull report show a surprising level of antagonism toward the Turners and also, potentially, a surprising disregard for the law.

There are also individuals such as David Crawshaw of KPMG, who was the reliable insolvency practitioner to Lynden Scourfield, one of the people found guilty of the HBOS fraud. These people must be investigated—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member when he is speaking, but I want to be assured that none of the cases he is discussing is live. They are not sub judice, are they?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Mr Bone, you make a fair point, but the report is in public circulation and has been for some time; this is nothing that you cannot read in public record on the internet.

The skilled persons report into RBS/GRG clearly refers to the abuses resulting from the priorities GRG pursued. That can only mean those in senior executive roles within that organisation: Derek Sach, Chris Sullivan and Nathan Bostock. To go back to your point, Mr Bone, I hope they are live cases and these people are being investigated, but the lack of evidence of any interrogation of these facts is the thing that most concerns us. The victims of the abuses must be questioned, at the very least, by our authorities, and if evidence of guilt can be established, prosecutions must follow. To our knowledge, no such questioning of victims has taken place. We need justice for the individuals who have been wronged, but we also need justice to ensure that those who are ultimately responsible are held to account.

Our major banks are so large and complex that I am sceptical that we will ever be able to regulate them effectively. As well as trying to stop these abuses from happening, therefore, we need a mechanism that offers redress to those abused when they do. The proposed solution of expanding the Financial Ombudsman Scheme is welcome, but will still leave many without access to justice. The FOS is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism; it cannot compel the release of evidence or attendance of witnesses, and judgments are made in private, so the guilty avoid scrutiny. The primary dispute resolution mechanism is the court, but who can afford to sue a bank?

The simple solution that we propose is to establish a financial services tribunal, as detailed by hon. Members on either side of the House, which would emulate the operation of employment tribunals so that the plaintiff does not have to stand the cost of the defendant’s legal fees even if they lose. If we give businesspeople confidence that they will be treated fairly if things go wrong, we can not only provide justice to those who have been wronged, but reverse the five-year decline in confidence and new borrowing from our banks and, crucially, deliver a timely boost to the UK economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

In typical passionate fashion, the hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. He is right that more politicians should be angry about this, and not just the hon. Members in this room or in the debates we have had recently in the Chamber. This is a critical matter that many more hon. Members should be focused on and concerned about. The hon. Member for East Lothian talked about the Government’s role, and I will come on to agree with some of the things he said and add my own comments. The disgrace of the Global Restructuring Group, which has been well rehearsed many times, is a vicious application of sharp practice by the GRG—although there were others, of course, and it was not alone in that.

The hon. Gentleman talked eloquently about the lost businesses, marriages and homes, and the people who have been stripped of their dignity and, in some cases, even pushed toward suicide. He made some positive proposals for the legal rights of SMEs, which were repeated by other hon. Members. He also said, tellingly—this is important for people—that the victims are not going away. This is not going to disappear just because the banks want it to; it will continue to be brought up.

The hon. Member for Stirling talked about entrepreneurs, and he is right. Entrepreneurs are important around the nations of the UK as those who take the risks—that is what it means. Anybody who has been in business knows that entrepreneurs often have to take risks that go beyond the norm, putting houses and property on the line, and in certain circumstances putting their family on the line—as we have heard in the context of the unfortunate outcomes—to take opportunities in business. He talked about fostering energy and ambition, which is exactly what banking should do. In some cases it does, and I will come back to some of that later, but I agree that it has proved to be frighteningly easy to erase businesses through technical breaches. That has been one of the biggest complaints.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the sneaky practice of banks using insolvency practitioners to do their dirty work. He spoke about RBS GRG’s asset stripping and loading up on the profits from that, as well as its brutal application by RBS and other banks. We can all pinpoint a constituent who has been hammered by these things, and the hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about his constituent John’s business being stolen from him. A common theme from all the contributions was the health effects on such people, including stress, anxiety and even heart problems, with families being almost torn apart. Similar to the line about victims not going away—I mean that in a positive way—he talked about the human cost, and he asked the Minister directly for clear action to ensure that justice is served. I will come back with some asks for the Minister as well.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke passionately, and rightly so. I do not say that in a glib way; he is right to be passionate and outspoken. He talked about people being terrorised by GRG and Dunbar bank, about people’s life’s work being taken away from them and the fact that there is one-way loyalty. Isn’t that true? In all of the cases we have heard about, that has been the situation—it has been a one-way street. Some of the banks have been predatory; there is no other way to put it.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about small and medium-sized enterprises being unable to match the legal armies of the banks. That is a vital observation, because after the banks carried out this sharp practice—we do not know, but some may still be doing some of this without it coming to light—there was no real recourse. People do not have the ability to tackle it. By the nature of the problem, they do not have the money to access the rights for action. He pointed out that the Financial Ombudsman Service, as it sits, is not fit for purpose for SMEs. The hon. Gentleman said that small business is the life and blood of his nation, and I think that is even more acute in Scotland, where small businesses are even more central to the economy, as was mentioned.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work. He made a point that I want to stress: banks provide vital services for businesses. When we criticise the people working in the banks, we talk about a fairly small number of key decision makers. We must appreciate that an army of people work in the banks who are good, hard-working, dedicated and honest people of great integrity who help people in their communities and in the wider business sector. I know that there is agreement around the room on that, but it is important to underline it.

As I said, banks provide vital services. When banks operate in the way they should, it is fantastic. When they operate in the ways we have seen, particularly with some of the decisions made at a corporate level over the past few years, it is absolutely destructive and no good at all.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about people working in those banks who have integrity. Through our work on the all-party parliamentary group, we met people at a senior level who were appalled at what happened within GRG. The second phase of the FCA investigation should now take place, to name individuals and find out who was ultimately responsible. However, it is not apparent that a thorough investigation and questioning of such people, who could provide evidence on exactly what happened, is taking place. It needs be shown that it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

This is becoming a habit, but I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have cut my notes a wee bit shorter, but the point I was going to make was exactly that: the sell-off of assets does not make any financial sense in the longer term. If we believe that the vans are going to stay—that requires a stretch of the imagination—they still have to employ people and incur costs. When we hear figures of x million pounds, that sounds like a lot of money to some people, and in some contexts it is a lot of money, but in terms of the scale of the bank, it is a tiny drop in the ocean, so again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

As I said, I will turn to the treatment meted out by RBS’s Global Restructuring Group. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, it behaved in a completely unacceptable and disgraceful manner. I concur with hon. Members that it is also a disgrace that the UK authorities have failed to intervene. Following the credit crunch, GRG took control of 16,000 SME customers with £65 billion of assets in Project Dash for Cash. Following allegations of malfeasance, GRG was reportedly disbanded in August 2014. More than 12,000 companies were pushed into the bank’s controversial “turnaround” division; and between 2007 and 2012, the value of loans to customers in GRG increased fivefold to more than £65 billion. With the threat of foreclosure of loans, the banks seized control of customer assets cheaply from businesses that they claimed were failing even though they had not defaulted on any loan repayments.

When we state the situation as simply as that, we wonder how it can be the case, yet as we have heard, time and again it was. We have said this before in the main Chamber and other debates, but it is absolutely shocking that bank managers were able to increase their bonuses by identifying customers who could be squeezed in what RBS itself, in a 2008 email, called “Project Dash for Cash”. The leaked document disclosed that the taxpayers’ bank ran down businesses as part of a premeditated strategy to cut lending and bolster profits. People should be in jail for doing that.

RBS is not alone in being embroiled in this scandal. Several other banks, including Clydesdale, were caught in similar scandals.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the financial interest and financial benefit that some of the executives saw. He may be aware that Nathan Bostock, who was one of the senior executives at GRG and is now at Santander, where I understand he earns £4.6 million a year, is still getting a bonus from RBS—in terms of deferred bonuses—of £1.8 million this year. Despite what has happened at GRG and the fact that it came about as a result of the priorities of the management, that person still earns millions of pounds in the financial services industry.

[Drew Hendry]

That was a stunning intervention. This is not just about people getting away with it; it is about people being rewarded for it and continuing to be rewarded for it. In any other place, this would be a great national scandal, of huge proportions. The fact that not so many people know about it is still a real problem for the way we are operating across the nations of the UK.

As I said, RBS was not alone. Clydesdale bank was caught in similar scandals. National Australia bank, former parent to the Clydesdale and Yorkshire banks, will be forced to cover £406 million of PPI provision, under a divestment agreement. NAB was forced to save £1.7 billion for UK banking sector costs. Nearly 70,000 small firms, 8,372 of them Clydesdale bank customers, took out what were called tailored business loans, which means that they are not eligible for compensation.

The Tomlinson report had already shown the damning practices conducted by GRG, saying that it

“artificially distresses an otherwise viable business”.

The report stated:

“Once in this part of the bank, the business is trapped with no ability to move or opportunity to trade out of the position—they are forced to stand by and watch an otherwise successful business be sunk by the decisions of the bank.”

We have heard testimony on that from other hon. Members around the Chamber.

I could say a lot more; I have a lot more to say, but I am wary of my voice dragging on through the debate. I have considerably more to input, but I will move on to the Scottish National party’s point of view. We demand that the UK Government create a permanent commercial financial dispute resolution platform to alleviate the situation for victims of mis-selling. We believe, as other hon. Members do, that the current system of commercial dealings with the regulator and litigation processes around mis-selling is, to say the least, inadequate. It is vital that every victim of mis-selling is given fair and equal access to justice.

We believe that asking the victims of mis-selling to take on the banks in court is not only immoral, but financially unworkable. The independent review process has been accused, as we have heard, of lacking in checks and balances. The role of the independent reviewer was to oversee cases, to ensure they are fair. Customers criticised the process, however, for the unaccountability of the reviewer, who would often fail to disclose the information that had been provided to them by the banks.

We call on the FCA and the UK Government to do all in their power to ensure that businesses, particularly small businesses, are informed about what they could be asked to sign up to and, critically, the consequences of doing so. It is time—the Minister has heard this from around the Chamber—for the UK Government and the FCA to step up to the plate to ensure that businesses get fair treatment and access to affordable justice.

The compensation scheme set up by RBS is simply not good enough. Given that many of the complaints were that sound businesses were being ruined, many company owners were also looking for compensation for consequential loss, rather than simply the fees they paid, which put them out of business. There is a separate consequential loss complaint scheme. By its nature, it is more complex and the calculation of loss is far more difficult. There are still questions, however, about the effectiveness of an ad hoc voluntary company compensation scheme.

We look to the UK Government to pick up where the FCA has failed and produce a comprehensive review into banking culture to ensure that history does not repeat itself for those customers. The SNP condemns the FCA’s decision to scrap its review on banking culture barely months after it was announced in 2015. It is vital that the Government take the necessary steps to ensure that the banking culture does not slip into pre-financial crash habits.

We fervently opposed the UK Government’s decision to scrap the reverse burden of proof, which had been recommended by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and call for it to be reinstated in legislation.

There are many other points I could make, but I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion so that others can speak. I want to underline the key points I have made. It is a disgrace that the UK Government have failed to use their influence from their 70% stake in RBS to represent Scottish communities and reverse the devastating branch closure programme. The Royal Bank of Scotland has failed to consult adequately on closing Scottish branches, with no clarity on the required performance of the 10 given a reprieve, which seem to be set up to fail. The treatment displayed by the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group to SMEs in the aftermath of the financial crisis was completely unacceptable. It is a disgrace that the UK authorities have failed to intervene.

The Government must now create a new, permanent commercial financial dispute resolution platform, to alleviate the suffering of victims of mis-selling. The UK Government must pick up where the FCA has failed and produce a comprehensive review into banking culture to ensure that history does not repeat itself. I add, as a parting shot, that leaving the European single market will also be disastrous for the financial services industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I was making it clear that, as a Minister, I do not make the operational day-to-day decisions about which individual branches should close. My responsibility is to see that consumers have access to the services they need, and I have done that through brokering the arrangement between UK Finance, which represents the banks, and the Post Office, which provides services when closures take place.

The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned insolvency practitioners.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. He talks about the issues around bank closures. One of the things that banks are doing to substitute for bank availability is moving us all online, so we are transacting more online through apps and the like. Colleagues have written on behalf of constituents to the all-party group to tell us about authorised payments and online fraud. Yet the banks themselves and the Financial Ombudsman Service are attributing gross negligence to the customer, despite the fact that they have gone to some lengths to try to prevent fraud. For example, the person on the other end of the phone knows their password, their maiden name—a degree of information that would not make that giving away of information gross negligence, yet they are being disadvantaged, despite the fact that the banks have pushed them online.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Payment Systems Regulator is doing a live piece of work to look at scamming and will report in September. It looks very much at culpability in such cases and I hope it will come up with a clear resolution that will give the public a better understanding.

If I may, given the luxury of additional time, Mr Hanson, I am going to try and reply to the points raised and then I will come on to substantive points. Insolvency practitioners are regulated by one of five recognised professional bodies. Legislation in 2015 introduced binding statutory objectives on these bodies, and the Insolvency Service has more sanctions available to it to deter and deal with poor conduct or performance. The insolvency code of ethics, raised through the Joint Insolvency Committee, is also expected to be revised and updated later this year, but I will be happy to enter into dialogue with the hon. Member for East Lothian about the specific issues and concerns that he has.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has conceded the point on RBS. I want to focus on banks, and I was responding specifically on the matter of RBS.

I want to set out what the Government have done to address the issues that came to the fore during the financial crisis, because the regulatory framework and what has evolved over the past 10 years is a foundation for some of the outstanding challenges that we need to resolve. Since the crisis, the Government have reformed the UK system of financial regulation for the benefit of the industry and the people who rely on it. We have bolstered standards across the sector and taken strides to restore public trust in financial services. I acknowledge that there is more work to be done, and I shall come specifically to the issues raised in the report of the all-party group, and in other work. We have regulators armed with comprehensive powers and responsibilities co-operating to identify and address risks across the financial sector. The Financial Stability Board has praised the UK for its successful transition to a new regulatory regime, and the International Monetary Fund has applauded the UK’s more resilient system. We have implemented reforms to improve individual accountability in the financial services sector, and that includes the introduction of the senior managers and certification regime, which promotes individual responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) set out a list of individuals about whom he has outstanding concerns; and it must be right to hold people to account. Where evidence exists for individuals having behaved criminally or in a way that needs further analysis, it must be brought forward. I understand that the shadow cast over the issue by outstanding cases needs to be resolved by the regulator. However, the SMCR promotes individual responsibility, holding senior managers to account for misconduct that occurs on their watch. It ensures that individuals at all levels can be held to appropriate standards of conduct. Both those things were key recommendations of the post-crisis Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The SMCR was implemented for all banks, building societies, credit unions and Prudential Regulation Authority-designated investment firms in 2016. The regime will be extended to cover insurance firms from December 2018, and all other Financial Conduct Authority-regulated firms in December 2019.

I want now to talk about the core issue of SME lending. Despite significant improvements to the system at large, I am acutely aware that concerns remain about misconduct within the sector.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The senior managers regime is important, but it will not be effective unless the regulators or law enforcement agencies investigate, speak to victims, find out exactly what has gone on, establish the evidence and take prosecutions forward where guilt is demonstrated.

[John Glen]

I agree, and will discuss the implications of that.

Many of the concerns that are raised relate to small businesses—sometimes microbusinesses, and sometimes individuals who have been working hard, with a perfectly solid relationship with their bank. Those businesses form the backbone of our economy, as several hon. Members have said this afternoon, and there has been justified anger, both within Parliament and beyond, about Global Restructuring Group at RBS, HBOS Reading and the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products. The case of GRG, and other cases from the crisis period, are unacceptable and I will continue to push for action. I shall explain what is happening.

I mentioned at the Backbench Business debate in May that the chief executive of RBS had committed to modifying the GRG compensation scheme. RBS will set up an independent appeal process for consequential loss claims. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned that in his speech. I shall discuss with Sir William Blackburne how that process will operate when we meet next week. I understand the concerns about the need for it to work effectively. As has been mentioned, the assessment of consequential loss is a tricky issue, and I need to be sure that the process will be expedited as well as possible.

Treasury officials receive regular updates from RBS on the compensation scheme, and I am glad that progress is being made on direct loss claims, with a further 200 complaints closed and a further £4 million paid out since the last debate in May.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No one suggests that Sir William Blackburne at RBS or Professor Griggs at Lloyds are not decent people, trying to do the right thing, but is not the concern the fact that the compensation schemes are internal? It is not enough for justice to be done; it must be seen to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very short of time. I will take two more: Kevin Hollinrake; and then Helen Goodman.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking is undertaking an important body of work on dispute resolution between banks and business. We will give it a parliamentary launch next week. Once the Minister has had time to digest the contents of that report, will he meet us to see how we can take the recommendations forward?

[John Glen]

I eagerly await the report’s launch next Wednesday. I will be happy to meet the all-party group and make a judgment about the best outcome on that issue, along with three other streams of work, in the autumn.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for bringing forward this important debate. Like me, he is an officer of the all-party group on fair business banking and finance, which I co-chair. I also speak today on behalf of Jon and Kerry Welsby and others in my constituency who have suffered as a consequence of the apparent bank-induced failure of business services company Mouchel.

As the motion states, the problems in the banking sector are not restricted to RBS—I will offer evidence to the House later that will widen this debate—but I will deal first with RBS. It is clear that the senior management are directly responsible for what happened, but there are also serious questions that the regulator, the FCA, needs to answer, particularly about how it intends to hold these individuals to account through phase 2 of its inquiry and about the reasons for the fundamental difference in tone and substance between the conclusions of the full report and those of its summary. Its summary sets out its key conclusions, and although it identifies isolated examples of poor practice, it lists eight separate areas where RBS was cleared of blame before later highlighting areas in which widespread inappropriate treatment had occurred.

The full report, released eventually by the Treasury Committee some 15 months later, stated:

“Our central conclusions are that there was widespread inappropriate treatment of customers by GRG”,

that

“in a significant proportion of cases...we assessed”

these businesses

“as being potentially viable”

and that

“the treatment appears likely to have caused material financial distress…for the most part”

as

“a direct result...of the priorities GRG pursued.”

[Martin Whitfield]

Is it not indicative of the problems of transparency that the delay between the release of the initial report and the full report was unacceptable and that it was only eventually released because of the efforts of Committees of the House and Members of this Chamber?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. We should thank the Treasury Committee and its Chair for their work.

As I said, these issues are not restricted to RBS. Many will also be familiar with the HBOS Reading scandal, where former bankers and their advisers were jailed for a total of 47 years in 2017 for activities that took place over a decade earlier, prior to the takeover by Lloyds in 2008.

I have recently been sent by one of those convicted, Mr Michael Bancroft—this was kindly facilitated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—hitherto unreleased documents, including the Project Lord Turnbull report, authored by Lloyds senior manager Sally Masterton, which alleges that senior managers within the bank were aware of the fraud prior to the takeover and the £14 billion Lloyds and HBOS rights issues, yet they took clear, deliberate and documented action to conceal it. Let us be clear: if this is true, it could potentially make the rights issues and the takeover fraudulent. Those named as culpable for non-disclosure in the report include chief executive Andy Hornby, chairman Sir Dennis Stevenson, former CEO James Crosby, corporate CEO Peter Cummings, and the auditors and reporting accountants, KPMG. The all-party parliamentary group will have a full copy of the report and Members will be given access to it. Status, seniority and background cannot be a barrier to justice or to holding to account those who are ultimately responsible for the devastation caused to so many lives and to the wider economy.

[Luke Graham]

Those papers, which will be made available to the APPG, mention the actions of the auditors, KPMG. Will KPMG be included in the investigation, and should it be the subject of a further debate in this place?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

They should certainly be included in the wider investigation, which is what I will call for shortly.

The Project Lord Turnbull report raises significant questions. Was there deliberate concealment of the scale of the fraud within HBOS and Lloyds? Who was party to the concealment? Crucially, did the concealment result in significant loss to bank shareholders and to subscribers to the rights issue? We see conflicts of interest in the report and in many other places. They include the auditors, KPMG, giving HBOS a clean bill of health in February 2008, only a few months before its collapse; the audit watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council, seeing no reason to investigate this audit; and the fact that four of the 10 members of the FRC board are partners at KPMG and that it is chaired by former Lloyds chairman Sir Win Bischoff, who oversaw the £14 billion rights issue.

Our all-party group sets out clearly what steps we now need to take. We need an investigation into the serious concerns raised against Lloyds and HBOS. The FCA must build a reputation as a regulator that acts without fear or favour. We need a new primary dispute resolution mechanism, potentially in the form of a financial services tribunal, which also sets aside the statute of limitations. We need a review of the structure of our financial crime agencies in the light of the evidence now before us to ensure that our system of justice is fit for purpose. Finally, the only way in which we can resolve the deep-seated cultural problems in our banking sector and remove the conflicts of interests that are so prevalent is by way of a full public inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been a sobering experience to listen to this debate. We have heard so many stories and so much advocacy from hon. Members on behalf of constituents. I commend everyone who has spoken today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking for securing this debate on a topic that continues to be of such critical importance.

In my remarks I want to restate the Opposition’s support for a full public inquiry; talk a little about the current inadequacy of the regulator and the section 166 procedure; state why an independent mechanism of redress for business is clearly required; and say why this is in the best interests not just of customers and the country, but of the banks themselves.

This debate shows that the issues around the relationship between banks and their business customers are not fading, diminishing or going away. Rather, in recent weeks we have continued to hear yet more appalling revelations about the way in which RBS’s Global Restructuring Group treated its customers and stories of how that had spread to other financial institutions, too. Following the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), we can now read the full section 166 report on the conduct of the GRG unit. The extent of the inexcusable behaviour revealed in that report is truly shocking. The purchase of the assets of distressed businesses, in some cases by RBS staff themselves, illustrates just how deeply the conflicts ran within GRG. Clearly, certain bank employees felt that they could act with total impunity towards their customers, and that cannot be acceptable.

We are all aware that the complaints process is ongoing between RBS and its former business customers who were the victims of GRG. However, I echo the call made by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) in the debate that took place earlier this year in saying that this issue demands a full, independent public inquiry. Given the revelations exposed in the section 166 report, there must be a comprehensive examination of whether criminal liability has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. In addition, given that certain individuals involved in GRG’s management continue to work in senior positions within British banking, surely an objective assessment should be made as to whether those people are fit to do so.

I am afraid that the Government’s response on this has so far fallen short—for instance, in the Treasury’s repeated cut-and-paste responses to the numerous parliamentary questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central since December 2017. The Treasury has simply deferred the issue time and again, saying that it is impossible to comment while the Financial Conduct Authority’s investigation is ongoing. Will the Minister please acknowledge today the strength of feeling in all parts of the House?

Another key issue is the effectiveness of the existing system—in particular, the use of section 116 reports and whether that is entirely appropriate to deal with these cases. A section 116 report, or skilled person’s report, is conducted by a third party appointed by the Financial Conduct Authority. The cost is met by the subject of the investigation, and it can range from hundreds of thousands of pounds to millions of pounds, but the reports remain entirely confidential. This lack of transparency is not good enough.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned executives from RBS who are still earning large amounts of money within the financial services sector. Is he aware that Nathan Bostock, a senior director within GRG, currently earns £1.6 million as chief executive of Santander and £1.8 million a year from RBS as part of his payoff?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. These are the questions that need answering. People have told me that they worked for RBS and left because they were unhappy with the conduct of the bank. Surely they should also be allowed to put their case in a proper way.

Returning to the confidentiality of section 166 reports, I have to put on record the disquiet, certainly among Opposition Members, about the discrepancy between the FCA’s summary of the investigation into GRG and the actual report in terms of the former’s heavily sanitised nature. Now that the report has finally been made public, we can fully witness the extent to which relationships with business customers were abused. Under normal conditions, however, the report would have remained confidential. That cannot be appropriate, because it furthers the perception that the odds are stacked against businesses. We need processes that are transparent and fair, and command the confidence of everybody. We also need to look at who is asked to undertake these reports and any conflicts of interest that they might have.

As many Members have pointed out, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. If they cannot trust the financial institutions that are meant to serve them, we are all going to pay the price for that. Statistics show that up to half of all SMEs are non-borrowers, although we do not know whether that is because they do not feel they can trust their banks or simply feel too anxious to expand by taking on credit. As a country, we all acknowledge that we need to offer those businesses the right incentives and support to grow. We need to solve this crisis of trust in business banking. An independent arbiter who can fill the gap between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the full legal route for redress is a minimum sensible starting point for consideration. We await with interest the outcome of UK Finance’s independent review, chaired by Mr Simon Walker, of complaints handling and alternative dispute resolution for SMEs, which could provide a steer.

However, I do not believe that this industry can be allowed to self-regulate, and that is why an independent platform must be considered. Like many Members who have spoken today, I believe that the restoration of trust in business banking is essential, but it will not come without the Government taking decisive action. A public inquiry, redress for victims, accountability for those responsible and a new independent system of redress are surely the right places to begin.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and her questions. She opened by asking what was the motivation for giving this statement today. I reassure her that it is that we believe that housing policy is one of the great issues of our age and we are determined to get on top of it, as the Chancellor set out in the autumn Budget. That is why—to move on to her question about how we will drive up the level of home ownership—the Chancellor made it clear at Budget that a further £15 billion would be made available, taking us up to £44 billion over the next five years, to drive up the supply of new homes. That is alongside planning changes and the review that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is undertaking to ensure that where planning permission is granted, houses are actually built. I suggest that we look at our record. Last year there were 217,000 new properties in this country, which is the largest figure since 2005-06. That indicates that our move towards having 300,000 more properties on the market by the middle of the next decade is realistic.

The hon. Lady asked specific questions about the effect of stamp duty relief on house prices, and she will know that the OBR forecast a small impact of 0.3%. She will also know that that projection did not take into account the various supply-side measures that I have mentioned, and other measures that we have undertaken. She asked about the specific case of properties bought within a corporate wrapper, and I hope she will be familiar with the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, which stands at 15% if the property is put into the wrapper. Indeed, on the basis she outlined where a property is then rented out, ongoing charges recruit tax in that way.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I welcome the Minister’s statement, and express my support for stamp duty relief for first-time buyers. That measure exists to reverse the trend of declining home ownership that began in 2003, and it is the right thing to do. Will the Minister confirm the commitment made in the autumn Budget to increase the amount of housing supply delivered by small and medium-sized developers, as they are a crucial part of solving the housing crisis in the UK?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should not undersell himself; he is an illustrious estate agent, and I have now drawn wider attention to that important fact.

Customs and Borders

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: there are so many unanswered questions and the clock really is ticking. We secured this debate to try to tease out those questions and get some answers, and to put forward some proposals for this debate. I also put on record apologies from the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), but that Committee is taking evidence in Berlin today.

Why put forward an effective customs union as part of the proposals? It means no tariffs on the goods we buy and sell with the European Union. It means no customs checks at the border. It is a crucial part of delivering the frictionless border for trade that the Government have rightly promised. It clearly does not solve all the problems and meet all the challenges that we face, but it is an important part—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept, though, that even with a customs union there would still be a need for checks at the border for things like product standards?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. There are wider regulatory issues that need to be addressed. There is a wider debate about regulatory alignment. That is obviously particularly important as it affects Northern Ireland, but it will affect ports across the country as well. The focus of today’s debate is specifically around a customs union. There are a lot of other aspects to Brexit that we will need to continue to debate in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I do, and I think this is also particularly about our manufacturing communities, and many of our towns across the country, where those jobs are so important.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful. The right hon. Lady has been very generous in taking interventions. Earlier, she referred to the potential for tailbacks as a result of checks. What I was trying to get across in my earlier question was that if we were still in the customs union but not the single market, checks would still be needed for product standards, so is she actually proposing membership of both the single market and the customs union, and if she is, is there any point in leaving the European Union at all?

[Yvette Cooper]

Look, there will be some for whom this debate is partly about what happened in the referendum. Others will want to have nothing to do with anything that is linked to the European Union in any way. I am looking to see where the consensus can be in this House, and I think there is a possibility of a consensus around a customs union. We can have a separate debate another time on the wider regulatory alignment—on which the hon. Gentleman and I have particular views—and on what other aspects of regulatory alignment, or of a single market, we may each care about. For now, the focus should be on a customs union, which does not prejudge the conclusions of some of the wider questions.

I want to say something about the common external tariff, because I think this bit gets lost too often. If we are in a customs union, we have the common external tariff, the consequence of which is that not only all those products, but all the components and agreements of the products can spin back and forth across different borders within the EU and not have to face rules of origin checks. Many businesses are particularly concerned about the rules of origin checks, because that means that they have to account for where the different ingredients come from. If they suddenly change the mix of ingredients in a product or if they suddenly change the source of their supply, they might also suddenly have to change their evaluation of the rules of origin and fill in different forms. That is a huge ongoing burden for businesses, employers and particularly for manufacturers. It is not just a one-off cost or an easy thing about ticking an online box.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

The hon. Gentleman might remember that not a single person who has spoken so far has even mentioned this, so I urge a little patience.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We spend a lot of time in this Chamber developing new regulations and rules that put costs on business. They might be environmental regulations, workplace regulations or animal welfare regulations. If the hon. Lady is talking about doing a free trade deal with nations that do not have such high standards, would she not be putting UK businesses at a significant disadvantage?

[Kate Hoey]

There is an issue there, but it is something that we can solve through negotiation and discussion. We do not solve it by putting up an immediate barrier to countries that desperately want to benefit from trading with us but are currently prevented from doing so.

The public’s expectation when they voted to leave, or even when they voted to remain, was that if we chose to leave, we would regain our trade policy. I do not think that we can do that other than outside the regressive customs union.

I will move on to Northern Ireland in a moment, but let me respond to a number of points that have been made in various ways. Why should we not want to trade with the rest of the world? Why are we being weak? Why can we not get our own trade deals? The EU takes so long to get a trade deal. We have seen how long it has taken, and we can do so much better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with authority because he knows the reality. He will also know that pharmaceutical batches must be checked to ensure that the quality and ingredients are right. That work has to be done in a European Union country in order for those products to be sold within the European Union, so this pharmaceutical company it is going to replicate exactly the same brilliant labs that it has in Broxtowe and in Nottingham over in Amsterdam. This is the stuff of madness. The company is looking at flying qualified, high-skilled technicians out to Amsterdam on a weekly, if not daily basis, to do the work there. Replication adds to costs, and I have no doubt that it will not be long before the senior managers simply say, “Why on earth are we doing it in the UK, facing the end of the customs union and the single markets, when we could simply go into another country in the European Union and replicate our manufacturing process there?”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Is my right hon. Friend therefore proposing that we stay members not just of the customs union, but also of the single market?

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely am. I made it very clear to my constituents when I stood for re-election in Broxtowe last June that I would continue to make the case for the single market and the customs union—oh, and by the way, for the positive benefits of immigration—and they were good enough to give me and our party their vote. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, each and every one of us must look deep into our hearts when deciding the future relationship that we will have with the European Union. It is imperative that we put our country and the best interests of our constituents first and foremost—and, in particular, over and above any ideological drive that too many people have—in this most critical of debates.

The final thing I want to say is this: I get rather agitated at the notion that we are about to be global Britain. Why? Because we are already global Britain. I had the great pleasure of going to the far east with David Cameron, and I went to China with George Osborne. Why did we go to these countries? To do trade. In fact, to do more trade; we already trade all around the world. That ability to trade should not be diminished in any way, and it will not be by our membership of the customs union. We have struck up well over 40 deals, and at the heart of those deals we made the case for free trade in a way in which no other European Union member state has done. We are recognised for our strong belief in free trade and we have achieved that by virtue of our membership of the customs union.

I am old enough to remember when we were described as the sick man of Europe, and we were. The reasons that we became such a hugely successful economy was because of our membership of the single market and the customs union. Other Members—especially my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was undoubtedly around at the time— have referred to Margaret Thatcher’s great speech, when she not only described the single market, but was the finest exponent of it. She believed in the single market. As many of us now know, she promised the Prime Minister of Japan that our country would never leave the single market, and that is why the Japanese invested in our country on the scale that they did.

I hope that the House does not have to divide tonight; nobody wants that. But we all want the best deal for our country, and that is in the customs union—and, by the way, the single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I voted remain and campaigned heavily to remain. I held eight debates during that campaign, alongside a gentleman from the UK Independence party, to help voters to decide what was the right or wrong thing to do. I said repeatedly that if we left, the negotiations would be difficult, and for two reasons.

First, given that we had been members of the European Union for 44 years, the complexity of the relationship was almost inconceivable. Today, hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the complexity of supply chains, and that is obviously why people support remaining in a customs union. My second reason for saying that the negotiations would be difficult was that the UK and the EU had different priorities and imperatives.

For starters, our exports to the EU account for 12% of our economy—to anyone listening to today’s debate, it would almost sound as though we were talking about the whole economy—but that represents only 3% or 4% of the EU economy, so there is clearly a disparity there. Then there is the fact that the EU’s principal priority would be to ensure that the EU did not fall apart as a result of other people walking out that door. For that reason, it is very difficult for the EU to give us a good deal, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has been very reasonable on exit terms and on proposals for a future relationship regarding things such as the highly streamlined customs border, which seems the preferable option of the two on the table. Such a border arrangement works in north America, and in Norway and Sweden, so it makes sense.

Nevertheless, the negotiations will be difficult. That is why people on both sides of the House are concerned, and it is why people are talking about a customs union. I think that that is the wrong thing. Yes, being in a customs union would remove the need for checks on tariffs, but unless we were also going to stay in the single market, we would still need checks to ensure regulatory alignment, so the queues at Dover would continue.

In addition, if we were in the single market and customs union, we might as well be in the European Union. In fact, that would be much worse than being in the European Union, because we would have no say whatever over the rules—no say in the trade agreements and no say in the new rules. The worst of all options would be to be in those two without being a member of the European Union.

Another option would be to stay in the single market only. That is my preference; if I had to choose the single market or a customs union, I would stay in the single market, through the European Free Trade Association and the European economic area. That has benefits. For example, there would be no need for checks on product standards. Other than that, however, I support the Prime Minister in her negotiations and wish her well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The debate has been enlightening and I have welcomed the chance to listen to all the Members across the Chamber. I should like to thank the 12 cross-party Chairs of the Committees and the Liaison Committee for enabling us to explore this motion today, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who set the scene. I would also like to thank the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who said that we needed a proper debate. To some extent, we have had that debate today. The motion and the debate have set out in stark terms the overwhelming case for the UK to negotiate a new customs union with the European Union on our exit.

I would like to share a quote with the House. Forty years ago, almost to the day, a former Leader of the Opposition wrote this in a German newspaper:

“It is no small thing to have completed and preserved a customs union covering a market of nearly 300 million people.”

That was Mrs Thatcher, then the Leader of the Opposition. The current Leader of the Opposition takes the same view—that a customs union involving Britain and the European Union is a project worth preserving. However, bound by the whims of the misguided or the ideologues in her party, the Prime Minister is unable to serve the national interest and commit the Government to negotiate a customs union with the EU beyond the transition period. As the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) asked, what are the plans? There do not appear to be any at all.

We are calling for an outcome that will protect the UK economy—a “jobs first” Brexit in the context of the six tests set by the shadow Brexit Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). So, while the Prime Minister talked about leaving under no deal, we have tried to work with the manufacturing industry and other business sectors to examine how we might best protect the interests of both producers and consumers, as have other Members across the Chamber. The Prime Minister explicitly ruled out a customs union with the EU in her Mansion House speech in January, yet at the Press Gallery lunch today the Home Secretary apparently cast some doubt over that, but she has since tweeted to say that we are now back on track and that there will not be a customs union. It is the lack of continuity and the confusion that creates problems.

By direct contrast, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that Labour is committed to such an arrangement, saying that

“Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland.”

As on many other issues, a cursory glance at Labour’s position shows that that is the line that we have been taking for a considerable period. Whether we like it or not, the Prime Minister has caused confusion. As far as we are concerned, we are campaigning for a customs union, and we are determined to follow that. We are not in the business of keeping Britain in the EU through the backdoor, nor would we countenance a deal that left Britain as a passive recipient of rules decided by others elsewhere. However, many in the Chamber have acknowledged the huge risks and uncertainties that leaving the customs union presents for jobs, manufacturing, business supply chains and, importantly, continued peace in Northern Ireland. A comprehensive and effective UK-EU customs union is possible and would ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and avoid the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland.

In entering a new customs arrangement with the EU, we would ensure that our hard-won workers’ rights, standards and protections are maintained and protected, blocking attempts by the more ardent Brexiteers to create a bonfire of such rights and the weakening of environmental protections. The new customs arrangement needs to ensure that Britain can have a say in future trade deals. A new customs union would ensure that the UK maintains close and progressive co-operation with the whole of Europe after Brexit, rather than creating the risk of growing isolation, which would see us further apart from our European neighbours on regulation, rights and standards. As has been identified today, even the Government’s leaked impact assessment, among other reports, shows that their highly streamed customs proposal will lead to non-tariff barriers and some tariffs, and it reaches the same conclusion as we have: a customs union is the only way to guarantee frictionless trade between the UK and the EU.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I would like to, but I do not have the time.

Clause 31 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which gives the Government the power to enter into a customs union, was published in November 2017, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). However, within weeks, the PM was ruling out a customs union, but it remained in the Bill on First and Second Readings and in Committee. Has anyone bothered to mention that clause to the Prime Minister? Is she even aware of it? Should she not commit to clause 31?

Today’s debate will send a clear warning to this Government that they cannot simply steamroll over the wishes of Members. It is time for the Prime Minister to act like one and to challenge those in her party and her Cabinet who continue to hold the country and the negotiations hostage. The road ahead is clear, and Labour’s position has been consistent, as many have said today. It is time for the Government to listen to the consensus and adopt a position that seeks to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union. It is the only practical way to ensure frictionless trade and to protect jobs and the hard-won peace in Northern Ireland. As many Members have said, we owe that to our constituents and to our country.

Independent Financial Advisers: Regulation

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulation of independent financial advisers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I put on record my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, which is primarily concerned with the business banking scandals that have devastated many viable businesses and ruined the lives of many business people and their families. The debate does not directly relate to those issues, but does have connections with the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, and its willingness and ability to hold those it regulates to account.

Whether as a consequence of malpractice, incompetence or deception, there will always be situations where innocent investors lose money through the failings of financial advisers. I will refer to the cases of two constituents. For the purposes of confidentiality, one would prefer to be known simply as Helen, and the other is Andy Mohun-Smith. The only connection between them is that they used the same financial adviser, Scott Robinson, who owned and operated a company called TBO Investments until 2016. He also owns a company called Mount Sterling Wealth.

Those cases and the supposed regulation of Mr Scott Robinson are truly astounding because nine years after an initial complaint was made to the FCA, seven years after the financial ombudsman ruled that he had provided unsuitable advice and ordered him to pay compensation, six years after an expert witness concluded that the investments advised by Mr Scott Robinson that were made on behalf of Andy Mohun-Smith were completely unsuitable, four years after it was established that he was providing advice without the required professional indemnity insurance, four years after Mr Mohun-Smith was awarded damages of £2.2 million, three years after Companies House issued a compulsory strike off order to TBO Investments, as it had failed to submit accounts since 2012, 18 months after Mr Scott Robinson put TBO Investments into liquidation and phoenixed those clients into his other company, Mount Sterling Wealth, and 12 months after I first asked the FCO to address those cases, the regulator continues to designate Mr Scott Robinson as an approved person and to authorise his company to provide regulated advice. Most incredibly, it does so principally on the basis that to do otherwise may deprive an individual of their livelihood.

I am sure that my constituents are two of many people who have suffered significant financial loss and distress at the hands of Mr Scott Robinson and his companies. Mr Scott Robinson is a clever salesman with a long and extremely chequered history of providing investment advice. According to the research of my constituent Helen, he has to our knowledge set up five limited companies. Three of them have been dissolved. One, TBO Investments, has been put into voluntary liquidation. Three have had striking-off proceedings taken against them. I would be happy to hear from other investors who have had similar experiences. I urge them to come forward and to make complaints directly to the FCA.

My constituents’ connections to Mr Scott Robinson began in May 2007, when Mr Mohun-Smith started to invest in supposedly safe, regulated investments with him. Over the next four years, he invested more than £2 million with the firm. By the end of 2012, he realised that the investment advice he was being given was deficient, defective and deceitful, so he took legal advice.

In January 2013, Mr Scott Robinson’s insurance brokers informed him that his professional indemnity insurance did not cover the investments he was making, but he did not reveal that to Mr Mohun-Smith until June 2014. In March 2013, Mr Mohun-Smith issued a legal claim against TBO Investments and Mr Scott Robinson. In June 2014, when the trial took place, the judge struck out the defence, because Mr Scott Robinson did not appear at the trial, and awarded damages of £2.21 million.

A court of appeal effectively decided that Mr Scott Robinson could have a rehearing, but before that could take place, in August 2016, he placed TBO Investments into voluntary liquidation. That thwarted any opportunity for my constituents to take legal action to cover their losses, and left his own lawyers out of pocket. He then transferred all his clients to his other company, Mount Sterling Wealth, which he still trades in, for a sum of £28,613, despite the fact that the company’s directors earn six-figure sums from their provision of investment advice to those clients.

I understand that the insolvency practitioner for TBO Investments is taking legal action against Mr Scott Robinson to return moneys to the firm, on the basis that he breached insolvency rules by way of those asset transfers. For Helen, the financial services compensation scheme may help, as her losses are below the £50,000 threshold. For Mr Mohun-Smith, that is of little help or consequence.

To this day, Mount Sterling Wealth continues to operate. Its website features Scott Robinson, and it states above his photograph:

“We will help you to create, build, and protect your wealth, and tax efficiently pass it through the generations.”

According to Companies House’s records, however, Mr Scott Robinson’s directorship was terminated by his resignation from that company four days ago, after nine years of directorships. Perhaps that is coincidental, perhaps not.

Crucially, what is the FCA’s role in all this? On the question of TBO Investment’s lack of professional indemnity insurance, it simply states that

“it remains the responsibility of the firm”.

That is despite going on to say that it requires firms to report on that every six months and despite the fact that the FCA eventually cancelled TBO Investment’s permission to undertake regulated activity due to non-compliance. Despite all that, Mount Sterling Wealth continues to be authorised and regulated by the FCA. It says it will consider outstanding complaints when future applications for authorisations of individuals are made, but it continues to designate Mr Scott Robinson as an approved person.

According to the FCA, an approved person needs to be able to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person for the purposes of providing advice. Shockingly, once they are approved, there is no ongoing re-approval process or requirement. The FCA has the power to levy fines and to impose banning orders on individuals, but it has thus far decided not to.

I have met Mr Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, and I have spoken to other senior executives there. Incredibly, the only justification I can get for Mr Scott Robinson’s continuing designation as an approved person is that they are concerned that they may be

“depriving an individual of their livelihood”,

That is this individual, with their chequered record. What about the deprivation of my constituents’ livelihoods? What about their income, their investment and their hard-earned money? Is that not what the FCA should be principally concerned about?

I turn to the solutions. The FCA must take action. It must take a more proactive oversight role of the financial advisers that it regulates; it must surely instigate a re-approval process for financial advisers; it must be willing to hold financial advisers to account where there is clear wrongdoing, and impose fines and banning orders; and it should work with the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and with Ministers if required, to revise and raise the level of the compensation scheme from the current level of £50,000, which is totally inappropriate.

For my constituents, Andy and Helen, this has been a most traumatic experience. In Andy’s words:

“This has had a devastating effect on my life...the damage to my health has been considerable. The enormous stress my wife and I were subjected to as a result of Mr Robinson’s disastrous investment decisions was undoubtedly a major factor in the breakup of our marriage.”

Those words say more than I ever could.

The FCA, the regulator that we entrust to make sure that our consumers, investors and businesses are fairly treated, has many questions to answer. It needs to take a long hard look at itself, and it must prove to those it is accountable to—the Treasury and Parliament—that it is able to carry out the role that it is required to perform. I, for one, am very sceptical that it is capable of doing so.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important debate. I also thank you, Mr Gray, for chairing it.

I am aware that this debate has been prompted by the constituency cases that my hon. Friend has highlighted today—those of Helen and Mr Mohun-Smith. As my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate, I cannot comment on the specifics of the cases, although it has been extremely useful to listen to and learn from them. I was very concerned to hear the evidence he brought before us today and laid out so clearly and painfully.

Successive Governments have sought to put in place a policy framework for the regulation of the financial advice market, and they have provided the independent Financial Conduct Authority with the powers that it needs to set out the rules for this market and to enforce them to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. It is troubling to hear the issues that my hon. Friend’s constituents have experienced, which suggest either that the framework itself has not been able to give them the protection they deserve or that the FCA has not acted to enforce the rules in the way we would have hoped it would.

Consumers depend on good advice from honest and reliable individuals to manage their life savings properly, to help them make life-changing decisions and to ensure their security in retirement, especially following the implementation of pension freedoms. We want people to access help to make those important decisions, from simple guidance and information to regulated financial advice.

To ensure that the market for financial advice functions effectively, we have to protect people from unscrupulous advisers, and we also have to protect the majority of reputable advisers from those who would do down their industry and their jobs. The independent FCA has set out the rules for the market, and it has been tasked by us to enforce those rules robustly to ensure that consumers are always treated fairly.

Firms and advisers have to be authorised by the FCA, they have to be qualified to provide advice and they have to ensure that such advice is suitable for an individual’s personal circumstances. As in any walk of life, there will always be individuals and firms out there who try to bend the rules or even to commit fraud and other forms of criminal activity. The FCA has the ability to take swift enforcement action to ban individuals firms from providing financial advice, although that does not appear to have happened in the cases that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and I will give thought to the point he made about ongoing re-approval. More action may be required in that regard.

In other cases, advisers might not provide suitable advice, leading to financial loss for consumers. In those cases, consumers can refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service for compensation, which is usually up to a maximum of £150,000 per individual. The advisory firm is then legally required to provide that compensation. Sadly, it is often the case that firms go into liquidation and cannot provide the compensation that individuals deserve. There is then a second tier of protection through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is mainly funded by an annual levy on the financial services industry. Since it was founded, the FSCS has helped millions of people and paid billions of pounds in compensation.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the current limit for compensation from the FSCS for people who have received bad advice is £50,000 per person. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the FCA has recently consulted on raising that compensation limit to £85,000, with an intention to introduce the new limit from 1 April 2019. We would strongly support such an increase. A limit of £85,000 would mean that—based on historical data, at least—only 2.5% of claims relating to investments and only 3.8% of claims relating to pensions advice would not have been fully compensated. Clearly, there will be individuals who have invested and lost far greater sums, perhaps including my hon. Friend’s constituents, but the vast majority of consumers would be protected.

Of course, when setting a compensation limit for the FSCS, the FCA has to strike a balance, providing an appropriate level of compensation to enough claimants, without placing an undue burden on the reputable financial advisers and firms that pay the levies—of course, those costs would be passed on in the end to consumers.

That is why it is mandatory for firms to be covered by professional indemnity insurance, which brings us on to another point raised by my hon. Friend. Such insurance should cover many claims, reducing pressure on the FSCS. The FCA published its consultation paper on the FSCS in October 2017, and it is considering whether to go further, to prevent firms from buying professional indemnity insurance that does not allow claims when the policyholder or a related party is insolvent. The FCA will issue a paper on this matter shortly, and we will welcome the decision that it makes.

The FCA has to remain vigilant in cases where firms go into liquidation to avoid paying compensation to consumers before re-forming as “new” firms. Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, whom my hon. Friend referred to, has recently said that this practice, which is often called phoenixing, is actively being examined by the FCA and that the FCA is also considering whether the existing rules are sufficient or the creation of new rules is required.

For example, the FCA placed asset sale restrictions on eight advice firms last year in an effort to clamp down on phoenixing. That was done to prevent the common practice of transferring assets that belong to the collapsed firm, including from the client bank, to its former directors, who of course go on to set up a new firm.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for addressing so accurately and so well the points that I made. Is he surprised, as I am, that what he referred to as professional indemnity insurance beyond an insolvency, which is commonly known as run-off cover, is required in many other sectors but not currently in this sector? Is he also surprised that the FCA countenances a situation whereby an adviser it licences as an approved person is able to carry on activities with professional indemnity insurance even though that insurance does not cover the activities they are advising people about?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am surprised by both the points that my hon. Friend has just raised. He and I both worked in professions before coming to this House—I worked as a lawyer, and he worked as an estate agent—and it is surprising that, in the profession of financial adviser, those practices are permitted. I hope that answering such questions will be part of the scope of the FCA’s inquiry and the work that it will subsequently do.

To return to phoenixing, we will work with the FCA to ensure that appropriate rules are in place. I intend to ensure that action is taken in this area. Phoenixing in these circumstances is wrong. It leaves consumers and taxpayers out of pocket and tarnishes the reputation of the industry. Just as with phoenixing in other businesses, these practices can be deeply corrosive to public confidence and to trust in the system, and the effects are, in time, passed on to the whole economy. We want an economy and a society that understand that entrepreneurs and businesspeople can fail—and often do so on the road to later success, wealth, job creation and flourishing new businesses—but those who fail deliberately or recklessly damage our economy and public faith in capitalism, and they must be stopped.

I would like to use this opportunity to raise some additional critical points. The Government have been implementing other policy areas to ensure that we have a better-functioning market for financial advice that benefits consumers. The first of these is the retail distribution review launched in 2006, which drastically altered the current charging market for independent financial advisers, encouraging them to charge set fees and prohibiting them from receiving commission from product providers. That was an important step forward, reducing incentives for advisers to recommend investments in which they had a financial interest, and improving the overall quality of financial advice. It has been welcomed by the sector and those who rely on it.

More recently, under this Government, the Treasury and the FCA launched the financial advice market review in 2015, with the goal of improving the accessibility and affordability of financial advice. Research we have done shows that those with high incomes generally—although not always—have access to quality advice, but those with moderate or low incomes, who arguably have the greatest need, have found decent advice far less accessible. The final report, which we published in March 2016, set out a package of 28 recommendations, which the Government and the FCA have now implemented. Although the recommendations of that review will take time to take effect, we have had encouraging feedback from market participants that the work we have done, which the FCA must now take forward, will make a real difference to consumers, and we are already seeing some tangible results in that respect.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this discussion on a very important topic here today. I will raise the points he made with Andrew Bailey at the Financial Conduct Authority again—I appreciate that my hon. Friend has already been to see him. I will highlight the cases he has brought to my attention and will ask for further explanations. He does not bring cases to this place lightly. He has a great deal of experience in business. He and the constituents he has talked about deserve answers and actions, and others in his constituency and across the country deserve to be protected.

The issue is not static; the Government and the FCA are committed to ensuring that it remains under constant review. I will urge the FCA to step up its efforts, particularly in respect of phoenixing, which is a wider problem and a challenge for all of us who believe in a free economy and who want to see its reputation protected. Like all Members of this House, I want to see consumers and members of the public protected, and the reputations of those who choose to pursue careers as financial advisers protected, not tarnished by the actions of the few.

Question put and agreed to.

Spring Statement

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is absolutely always a pleasure to visit Nairn, but I have no immediate plans to do so. As the Prime Minister has told the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on several occasions, we do not interfere in the day-to-day management decisions of the Royal Bank of Scotland—[Interruption.] Let us treat this seriously. The consultation that we published today is about cashless and digital payment systems, but it specifically acknowledges, as I said in my statement, that we also have to ensure that cash is available to people who need it. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the consultation when it is published, he will see that we are determined to address that issue. I hope that he will engage in that consultation.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Chancellor is right to look at the impacts of the VAT threshold on business. It is a disincentive to growth and an incentive to avoid tax through cash deals. Does he agree, however, that registering for VAT does not just have financial implications—it also has an administrative impact? Would this be an appropriate time to look at the entire VAT regime?

[Mr Hammond]

I think that that would involve widening the scope of the intended consultation rather dramatically. I remind the House that, when I referred to this issue in the autumn Budget, I said that I was not minded to lower the VAT threshold because I recognise that, at its current level, it keeps a lot of small businesses out of the administrative burden of VAT. However, we are keen to ensure that the cliff-edge effect, which has a damaging impact on businesses that are trying to grow, should be addressed if it is possible to do so. The consultation will pursue those ideas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I just do not recognise or agree with the hon. Gentleman’s figures. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s analysis shows that infrastructure investment per capita in the north is actually higher than in the south-east.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

21. The Chancellor has spoken out in favour of rebalancing the economy via a fairer distribution of transport spending. Will he therefore consider Transport for the North’s strategic transport plan, which calls for a 50% increase in transport spending across the north of England?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government are committed to the northern powerhouse project and recognise that that has to be supported through infrastructure investment. We are looking at northern powerhouse infrastructure investment projects on a case-by-case basis, and we will continue to support the development of the northern powerhouse.