Rebecca Long Bailey
MP for Salford · Labour · United Kingdom
“Let me first offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her brilliant speech, and for the work that she does most weeks and about which, in my opinion, she does not speak loudly enough. My mum has been rushed to A&E twice in the last two months, and I have been with her.”
“For years we saw hospital beds disappear, staff vacancies grow, social care neglected, community health services hollowed out, and local authority budgets slashed, and the consequences were entirely predictable.”
“It was harrowing. I can only describe it as something that one would see in a war zone rather than in modern Britain. When I asked the staff, “Is it always like this?” they said, “Yes. It comes and goes when it gets busy. It gets worse at weekends.”
“That sounds brilliant, but the fact is that the system does not have the staff capacity to deliver it, so we need a properly funded long-term workforce plan that delivers fair pay, expands education and apprenticeships, improves retention, ensures that we have safe staffing standards, and gives frontline staff a real voice in how services…”
“It also means investing in community nursing, neighbourhood health teams, rehabilitation services and mental health, so that fewer people reach crisis and more people can leave hospital safely when they are ready.”
“If we want to end corridor care, we must deal with its root causes, not just the consequences, because it does not just begin when someone arrives at A&E; it begins when they cannot get a GP appointment, when mental health support is not there, when local authorities cannot provide a care package.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Rebecca Long Bailey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“That may of course be the case, but for that data even to exist in the first place, the sample results had to come first, so what happened to them? I truly intend to be helpful to the Minister in getting to the bottom of this puzzle. I have no doubt that he wants to help veterans and their families to receive the information that they need. To that end, I have a number of questions that I would like him to answer. First, can the Minister review the security classification for the 150 FOI documents that I have mentioned, so that they can be released for public view? Will he release the AB and ES series of files and, if not, explain to the House why they are to be withheld?”
“I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I know his constituent very well: he is a very lovely man and has fought long and hard to achieve recognition for veterans and their families and descendants. Unfortunately, veterans themselves have not undergone an extensive health study into the effects of the radiation to which they were exposed, let alone their descendants in relation to the impact on future family members. The Government certainly need to address that to give people such as Steve the certainty that he will receive the support that he requires if it is needed in the future. At the moment, he is not receiving such support, sadly. The Minister himself has stated that it is likely that the blood tests are simply categorised in scientific data at the AWE.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for all the work that she has done over the years to support nuclear test veterans. They are very appreciative of her efforts. On her point about transparency, that is the key to today’s debate. All that these men are asking for is the truth. They want to know where their test results are and if they cannot access them, they want to know why. They deserve nothing less than the truth for the service they have provided to this country. I hope the Minister will do all he can to honour their requests.”
“However, they found excessive radiation in nuclear testing veterans, and that it had overall implications for their health over time. I have no doubt that the Minister’s intentions in this debate are very honourable, but he made some confusing comments. For example, he stated that the Atomic Weapons Establishment does not hold any medical records—that is his firm belief—but he went on to say, in response to the question about the 150 documents that were referenced in the freedom of information request, that test information was in there, and was provided to the next of kin. That suggests to me that the AWE did hold test information on individuals, and that as a result of the FOI request, it had to issue those results to a veteran’s next of kin. Would the Minister like to respond on that point?”
“Various colleagues made references to the compensation and support provided to other countries’ nuclear testing veterans; for example, in America, nuclear testing veterans have received a day of recognition, medical care, compensation and access to their full medical and testing records. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about the need for an inquiry, not only for testing veterans, but for their descendants. In the UK, we have never had a detailed health study or research project into the effect of radiation on nuclear testing veterans and their descendants. The Minister made reference to a number of papers that were produced, but the veterans were not provided with the full suite of information required to determine what outcome was needed. Indeed, international studies have come to different conclusions.”
“I thank everybody for their contribution to today’s debate, which has been very good and collegiate. I extend special thanks to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). It is very rare to make good friends with someone on the opposite Benches, but he and I have been very friendly and active on the issue of nuclear testing veterans; he has done long-running work over the years as a champion of those veterans. He said that although we may have been united in our campaigning activities, the Governments over the decades have not been united, or have been united only in their failure to recognise what testing veterans suffered.”
“Veterans have been campaigning for access to their records for over 70 years. He said that many of the documents will be in paper form, and that there might not be an auditable trail. I find it very hard to believe that in one of the greatest militaries in the world, there would not be a system for accessing particular documents. Will he look into that as a matter of urgency, and perhaps conduct an inquiry on the location of those historical documents and report back to the House? As I said in my opening remarks, if the documents do not exist and he knows that they do not exist, it is up to the Government to be open and honest, and to explain what happened to the documents, on whose instruction they were destroyed, and why. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered nuclear test veterans and medical records.”
“I appreciate the honesty of the Minister’s response, but I am sure he can understand the frustration in this debate, and of course in the wider country. Every response that we receive is different. One suggests that there are medical records; the other suggests that there are not. We just want to know the truth. I understand that he has undertaken to review the 150 FOI-request documents, which is very much appreciated. Perhaps he will report his findings to the House, but there are numerous other documents that we know exist—for example, the AB and ES files that have been withdrawn from the National Archives. If he could commit to putting those in the public domain again, we would be grateful. As for other documents that may or may not be available, the Minister referenced the fact that the documents are very old.”
“On the issue of clarity, the Minister knows that the final offer mechanism should be an issue of last resort, and before that there should be a mechanism by which negotiations can take place. Can he assure the House that there will be a mechanism to ensure that big tech firms do not drag out negotiations unnecessarily, because it is not clear so far?”
“They should listen to calls from the Royal College of Nursing to forgive tuition debt for all current nursing and midwifery students and to abolish self-funded tuition fees for all future nursing, midwifery and allied health students. That must be accompanied by a package for students, including a living costs grant that reflects the true cost of living and access to hardship payments. To keep those staff, the Government must listen to the alarm bells being rung by the NHS workforce, who do not want to take strike action but are simply desperate. Pay them properly and fund their services.”
“Although an additional £2.4 billion is to be provided to cover training costs for the first five years of the 15-year plan, no estimate has been put forward of total additional running costs beyond that for the hundreds of thousands of extra workers the plan says will be needed by 2036-37. The Government may refer to the education pipeline, but for every burned-out experienced nurse who leaves the profession, it takes at least three years to educate a new nurse. It has been estimated that one in three nurses leave their course citing financial challenges and poor support as reasons for leaving, and trainee doctors report feeling burned out. Clearly, the Government need to take urgent action to increase the numbers of those training in NHS professions.”
“It is no surprise that we are hearing these stories, as the Government have chronically underfunded NHS maternity services—a commitment to only one third of the funding recommended by the Health and Social Care Committee was made recently. Of course, the Government will say that they are responding to the staffing crisis and will cite their NHS workforce plan, but the Public Accounts Committee has criticised the plan heavily in a new report. In particular, it has criticised the lack of funding estimates and raised concerns about how the plan will be achieved.”
“Even when they reach these services, which are miles away from their home, resource pressures and reduced staffing appear to be negatively impacting the remaining services at other locations. One mother explained the situation to me: “I have recently given birth to my third child and the deterioration of services is shocking and has caused significant trauma to myself and my family... I experienced medical negligence, epistemic and testimonial injustice and disability discrimination throughout pregnancy, birth and in the postnatal period”. Unfortunately, that mother’s story is not a one-off. Make Birth Better estimates that about 200,000 people a year find some aspect of giving birth traumatic, yet 30% of new parents suffering from mental and/or physical trauma after giving birth do not feel they are being supported.”
“Ingleside birth and community centre is a freestanding midwife-led birth centre for antenatal and post-natal care, as well as low-risk birthing. It is situated in the middle of the beautiful Oakwood park in Salford. This state-of-the-art facility was opened a few years ago to address the absence of local maternity services after the closure of the maternity unit at Salford Royal Hospital in 2011. Sadly, because of a midwife shortage, the facility has been closed since the pandemic, leaving Salford residents, families, new parents and their new-born babies without access to maternity services in the city. New parents and their new-born babies are forced to travel many miles across Greater Manchester to access these services.”
“The position for midwives is equally dire, and midwifery now makes up a smaller slice of the NHS workforce than at any time on record. There is a big difference between the English regions, too. In the 12 months to July 2023, the number of midwives in the east of England rose by almost 9%, but in the north-west the number rose by just over 1%. The Nursing and Midwifery Council has said: “There are clear warnings workforce pressures are driving people away.” It found that 27,000 professionals had left the register in the UK in the year to the end of March 2023 and that although retirement was the most common reason for leaving, the next most common reason was health and exhaustion. The real-world consequences of this crisis in midwifery are being felt in Salford.”
“At the time, both the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association warned that staffing levels were not meeting patient demand and that this was putting patient safety at risk. Further, the Royal College of Nursing stated that nursing staff were leaving the profession “in droves”, often because the stress and demands of the job do not match their current pay levels. It said that one nurse can be left looking after 10, 15 or even more patients. Those ratios are unsafe and require urgent action from the Government. There is also a two-tier system for nursing staff, with different pay for the same job, as there is no parity of pay, terms and conditions across all the sectors in which nurses work.”
“Well, the big flagship policy seems to be the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which completely undermines the Government’s so-called commitment to net zero. Staggeringly, even the Government admit that the Bill will do nothing to bring down household bills. The King’s Speech also talked about implementing minimum service levels. Of course, this was a reference to underpaid and, frankly, burned-out public sector workers striking for fair pay and adequate funding for their services, which are in a state of acute crisis. The irony is that the Government cannot deliver minimum service levels on a day-to-day basis in the NHS because of chronic underfunding and underpay, never mind on strike days. I wish to elaborate on the staffing crisis within the NHS. More than 112,000 vacancies were recorded across NHS England in March.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). The King’s Speech was more notable for what was not in it. On the day, critics called it the “all mouth and no trousers” speech. In fact, it had the fewest Bills in a monarch’s speech since 2014. People in my Salford constituency looked at it and wondered, “What is in it to make my life better? What is there to help with the cost of living? What is there to support public services, to improve our broken public transport system or to address the NHS crisis?” Sadly, the answer was nothing. The mental health Bill was abandoned yet again, despite being a manifesto promise in 2017 and 2019, and despite there being a clear mental health crisis. There was no conversion therapy ban, despite it being promised repeatedly by the Government. What was actually in the King’s Speech?”
“I heard stories about how horrified those young people were when the Prime Minister made certain statements during his conference speech, and how in some cases those young people felt they had no place in the world. Some had even considered suicide. The Government must understand that their words have an impact, not just on increases in hate crime but on the mental health of the people they affect. We have a moral duty in this place to speak up for those we feel are disenfranchised, and we have a moral duty to choose our words carefully. I am proud that Britain is a tolerant, respectful and inclusive country but, as the charity Stonewall states, “a lack of positive action and threats to existing rights are taking the UK off course.” We cannot allow that to happen.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for securing this important debate and for his passionate speech, which I associate myself with very much. The statistics that my hon. Friend set out were absolutely shocking, but they are only the reported crimes. As we know, only one in 10 LGBTQ+ people report hate crimes or incidents. It is even more worrying and upsetting that over recent months we have seen Government spokespeople specifically using trans people—who already struggle against prejudice day in, day out—as a political football, for no reason other than stoking a culture war. The Government’s words matter. I met a group of parents of trans young people in Salford on Sunday. The Government’s words mattered to them, and they mattered to the young people.”
“Q13. The Prime Minister will be delighted to know that nuclear veterans like my constituent’s grandad, John, are starting to receive the medals he promised, but John is still not getting his full medical records. His blood tests from Christmas Island, which are crucial to claiming a war pension, are missing, and countless veterans report the same. As the Ministry of Defence has admitted that it holds at least 150 files withheld from national archives referring to blood test and other data, will he review those documents, report back to the House and hold a public inquiry into why medical record omissions have happened, and on whose instruction?”
“While it is welcome that it has been reported today that RAAC has not been found in any of our schools in Salford, I must stress that the fact that the Government were unable to produce that information until today, having known about the risk since at least 2018, when a school roof in Kent collapsed, is completely unacceptable.”
“It stated clearly that the DfE had received significantly less funding for school buildings than it estimated it needed between 2016 and 2023. The Government knew that this crisis was coming, and the causes of this crisis were very deliberate. Austerity is, was and always will be a political choice, but it is both immoral and economically illiterate. The only political choice the Government should have made was to ensure the safety of their people. Sadly, if they had made that choice, the cost borne then would be a mere shadow of the cost required today.”
“Then the story becomes even more absurd: in March 2022, realising that there was a problem, the Department for Education sent a questionnaire to all schools asking if they had RAAC on their estate, but later told schools not to spend any money on surveys to find out. Even after that, in May 2022, when Government documents were leaked to The Observer showing that school buildings could be a risk to life—causing great alarm in schools up and down the country—half the schools then applied for funding to remediate and did not get a penny from Government. In June 2023, the National Audit Office said the condition of school buildings was “declining” and warned that 700,000 pupils were learning in buildings that it described as unsafe or ageing.”
“Sadly, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies states: “The current crisis illustrates just how costly failing to keep on top of necessary investment in buildings and infrastructure can be.” How much money was actually required, had the Government taken action on schools when it should have? The National Audit Office in 2017 published a report on capital spending that stated that it would cost £6.7 billion to return all schools to a satisfactory or better condition. That report was also clear that there is a significant risk of major costs arising from deterioration of the estate. Action was needed in 2017, but in November 2020, in the Government spending review, they allocated only £3.1 billion—less than half the amount of investment required just to keep buildings ticking over safely.”
“Worse still, there appears to be an emerging message today from Government that this crisis is stand-alone—that it is simply a sad indictment of less-regulated old building practices that are now outdated. That is not the true story. The real culprit here is the unashamed pursuit of austerity by this Government and the coalition before them. Let us not forget that, to start with, the coalition ripped up Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010 and never adequately replaced it. Worse still, between 2009 and 2022 the Department for Education’s capital spending declined by 37% in cash terms and 50% in real terms. That is in addition to NHS and local authority budgets being slashed on a similar basis, with the effect that most ongoing public sector estate upgrade programmes were torn to shreds.”
“I completely agree with my constituency neighbour. I stress that not just schools are affected by this crisis; it extends to public buildings, and concerns have been raised in recent days by the building industry that certain residential properties, particularly social housing, could also be affected. On hospitals alone, a report by the National Audit Office in July this year said that structurally unsound RAAC was present in at least 41 hospitals. The Turnberg building at Salford Royal Hospital is reported to be one of them. Despite this clear national building safety crisis, there is no detail from Government on what action will or will not be taken, no detail on the urgent funding and support that will be provided to remediate and no assurances so far that the costs will not come out of existing school, NHS and local authority budgets.”
“Water companies were sold with no debt when they were privatised in 1989. In fact, they were given a £1.5 billion green dowry by the Government. Since then, they have taken on borrowing of £60.6 billion, diverting income from customer bills to paying dividends and interest payments. As a result, water bills have increased by upwards of 40% in real terms. Does the Minister honestly think that consumers hail privatisation as a success?”
“A nuclear testing veteran has said: “We have heard it all before, governments come and go, but the Nuclear Veterans keep fighting, that’s exactly what we did for our country all them years ago, so please, no more false promises just action…award us our medal”. He speaks for the thousands who were promised medallic recognition by the Prime Minister on 22 November last year. Sadly, they are now informed that the medal has been delayed again by the Government. What is the delay? Why is it happening? Will the Minister categorically promise the House today that those veterans, whose average age is now 85, will finally be awarded their medals before Remembrance Sunday so that they and their descendants can proudly wear them?”
“In a more recent case, journalists at Vice UK faced statutory redundancy terms, with many having to leave with almost nothing because the company filed for bankruptcy, while its recent global CEO was on an annual salary of $1.5 million. It is not just workers who lose out in these situations. Figures disclosed in response to written parliamentary questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) indicate that over the last two years alone statutory redundancy payments cost the taxpayer around £300 million. If the law is not clear enough on the point at which creditors’ interests in an insolvency should be prioritised, what other mechanisms are there to sound the alarm?”
“The workers were left waiting for weeks without any source of income, obliged to depend on family and friends or use food banks in the resulting emergency, and they included one who was fighting leukaemia. A not dissimilar instance occurred at Orchard House Foods in Gateshead, with redundancy negotiations over the site’s closure seeing the company fail to pay workers ahead of the Christmas period. Sadly, that practice does not just plague the food sector; it is increasingly evident across the wider economy. Thomas Cook, for example, also failed abjectly to consult over redundancies prior to insolvency, when it was known for some time that the company was in trouble.”
“The Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union highlights the cases of Dawnfresh Seafoods and Orchard House Foods, which it says “raise significant concerns about the ability of business owners to abuse the process around administration and insolvency, leaving workers in the lurch and denying them the full value of their outstanding pay and redundancy monies owed—whilst Directors walk away with impunity, often with enormous levels of wealth intact.” In the case of Dawnfresh, the union reports that the director allowed workers to carry on overtime shifts in full knowledge that he was about to bring in the receivers. He also took the opportunity before insolvency to rescue his own private art collection from company premises.”
“As the London Solicitors Litigation Association noted, “the precise point in time at which the duty will be triggered and how to balance creditors’ interests with other competing interests of the business remains relatively elusive.” It is that elusiveness that continues to allow some directors to act in a way that is detrimental to workers and other creditors.”
“I suggest that that is because the bar for disqualification for unfit conduct is very high and often difficult to prove, particularly where a director can claim to have relied on the advice of external advisers when making decisions. Further, the law surrounding whether directors have acted inappropriately in an insolvency situation, and specifically the point at which directors should begin to consult on redundancies and prioritise payments to creditors prior to insolvency, is ambiguous to say the least. The Supreme Court recently affirmed that ambiguity in the case of BTI v. Sequana, noting that company directors are only required to begin prioritising creditors if it is probable that their company will plunge into insolvency. The problem is that no one knows what “probable” actually means.”
“As the Unite the union has stated, “In the end, four Carillion executives were fined £870,000 in total – a mere slap on the wrist given the hundreds of millions of pounds the company lost and the thousands of lives they ruined.” Former BBC investigative journalist Bob Wylie, who wrote the Financial Times book of the year “Bandit Capitalism: Carillion and the Corruption of the British State”, summed up the present position perfectly when he said: “The sad truth is they get away with it because they know they can.” The most recent figures by the Insolvency Service for 2022-23 show that almost half of disqualifications were because of misuse or abuse of the bounce back loan scheme, rather than more robust action being taken against directors for unfit conduct prior to insolvency.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered insolvency law and director disqualifications. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. Thank you for making time for this important debate. Five years ago, Carillion collapsed in one of the biggest corporate scandals seen in recent years. Millions were racked up in debt, tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs and pensions, and thousands of supply chain businesses were put at risk, all because the auditors failed to hold Carillion’s board to account and a blind eye was turned to poor corporate behaviour. Five years on, have changes to the UK corporate governance regime been made to ensure that such a scandal cannot happen again? The answer, sadly, is not encouraging.”
“If not, can he explain clearly the Government’s reasons for avoiding that in favour of more diluted and legally unenforceable guidance? It is clear that the current UK corporate governance regime has become dysfunctional, ambiguous and unenforceable. Despite numerous scandals, it still has no room for the protection of employees and other stakeholders. I hope the Minister can reassure me today that things will change. Thank you for the opportunity to hold this debate, Ms Fovargue.”
“That would provide much-needed clarity on when a duty to consult on redundancies is triggered, and when payments to workers and creditors need to be prioritised over shareholder dividend extraction. Thirdly, will the Minister comment on why the Government proposals made in recent years to introduce workers on boards have been shelved? Will he commit to examine and develop policy in the light of the experience of other European jurisdictions, where direct representations of employees on both unitary and two-tier boards has actually helped to improve corporate performance and success, for the benefit of all stakeholders? Last, will he introduce clear Sarbanes-Oxley-equivalent legislation that would finally make directors legally responsible for financial reporting governance?”
“Given these glaring deficiencies in the law, I will be grateful if the Minister considers some simple legislative changes that would provide much-needed clarity and protect workers, creditors, and the long-term health of companies. First, will he widen the scope of directors’ duties in section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, so that a duty is not owed solely to shareholders, as at present, but is owed to workers and other stakeholders as well? That must sit alongside a clear duty to prioritise the long-term welfare of a company, rather than simply the short-term maximisation of shareholder dividends. Secondly, with regard to the duties of directors prior to insolvency, will the Government legislate to set clear definitions and parameters for when insolvency is deemed to be a “probable” event?”
“Sadly, even the chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales believes that the Government’s White Paper proposals on reform of the audit industry do not go far enough, stating: “Taking these measures as a package with the draft audit reform Bill outlined, the government's approach has a half-hearted and lopsided feel to it… Lessons from Carillion and other recent company failures have been ignored, with little emphasis now on tightening internal controls and modernising corporate governance.” A further five years on from Carillion, we are no closer to the creation of the Government’s long-promised audit, reporting and governance authority, or the passing of the Government’s promised audit reform Bill. When we can expect legislation on audit reform and the creation of ARGA?”
“Secondly, what is glaringly absent from the Government’s White Paper proposals so far is a statutory and enforceable Sarbanes-Oxley equivalent, which would make directors legally responsible for financial reporting governance. Instead, the White Paper opts for the fluffier “encouragement” of boards to include in their annual reports declarations about whether internal risk management and internal controls are effective or not. Similarly, the provisions that recommend that certain minimum clawback conditions or “trigger points” are included in directors’ remuneration arrangements are welcome in principle, but the reality is that these employment contracts are not publicly available so as to enable enforcement, and annual financial reports rarely provide comprehensive information.”
“However, it is important to note that although the code is underpinned by listing rules that require premium-listed companies to “comply or explain” if they have not complied with a code provision, there is no strict legal requirement to comply with the code at all. It is merely a guidebook, and the lack of legal enforceability is clear. The Financial Times reported only last month that the FRC has reported falling levels of compliance since 2020, suggesting that boards are willing to risk avoiding the “comply or explain” requirements, particularly as the ultimate threat is simply to register dissatisfaction in a non-binding shareholder vote, or one that historically the company has a vanishingly small chance of losing.”
“In this dysfunctional culture, firms must win and retain engagements from companies in order to generate revenue, but simultaneously they must objectively scrutinise the company reports of the very people they are trying to win business from. Indeed, the symptoms of this flawed culture are clear. The Financial Reporting Council has stated that 29% of the audits delivered by the seven biggest accounting firms fail to meet UK standards. It is abundantly clear that the UK corporate governance regime is in urgent need of reform What actions have the Government taken so far? In his response to the debate, the Minster will no doubt refer to the Government’s White Paper on reforms to the UK corporate governance code, which the FRC is consulting upon as we speak.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his comments and I agree completely. There are huge issues surrounding the area of pre-pack administrations and the issue of phoenix companies, whereby directors are allowed to reappear in another form with the same kind of company structure with complete impunity. This certainly needs to be addressed by the Government. Other mechanisms exist to sound the alarm on poor corporate governance. That is usually when the role of auditors should be key, but in recent years the unhealthy structure of the industry has been widely criticised, as well as the market dominance and conflicts of interest of the big accountancy firms.”
“I do not think it is unreasonable to expect directors to have that legal liability. Finally, on the audit system, the Minister has not provided any clarity about when ARGA will be set up, when audit reforms will be forthcoming or how extensive they will be. We got a taster in the Queen’s Speech, but as I am sure he agrees, reforms need to go a lot further than what the Government have put forward, because issues arise time and again. If we look at the dysfunctionality of the audit industry, KPMG was fined £14 million for not auditing Carillion’s company accounts correctly, and that was not a one-off. Prem Sikka referred to the case of Silentnight, in which KPMG—again, in the pursuit of a coveted client—did a pre-pack administration and sold a company to that potential client at an undervalue. It was fined £13 million for its role in that.”
“On the issue of Sarbanes-Oxley, the Minister said that there is a balance to be struck, and he implied that by introducing legal requirements on directors in the style of Sarbanes-Oxley, we would in some way restrict entrepreneurship. That has certainly not been the case in the United States. I was reading a Harvard law report this morning that suggested the opposite—that providing certainty to shareholders and investors would actually encourage future investment. Directors should be able to say, “Yes, all the financial statements we are making are 100% correct. We are categorically supportive of the work that our auditors have done, and we’re happy to provide those reports to our shareholders.” If they cannot do that, we have a serious problem with our UK corporate governance regime.”
“I applaud the work of the Insolvency Service, but it can only examine conduct as determined under the current law. Take a situation where directors could have consulted on redundancies prior to an insolvency event but did not. The law is very weak and ambiguous on that, which is the point I was trying to make in my opening remarks. As the Sequana case clearly shows, the point at which an insolvency becomes probable is not defined in law. There is a point in time when directors should be, on a sliding scale, prioritising the interests of creditors prior to a probable insolvency. Defining that is crucial to providing the protection that workers and creditors deserve in situations where some of the money they are owed could be paid back to them.”
“I thank everybody for taking part in the debate, which has been wide-ranging; a lot of interesting points were raised. I thank the Minister for his lengthy response. I welcome a lot of the comments he made, and I followed his work as a Back Bencher on this issue, so I know we are on the same page on many issues, but I am saddened that he did not go into the level of detail that many of the questions asked by myself and colleagues required. The vast majority of directors do the right thing—we wholeheartedly agree on that point—but the problem is that when the minority do not and it goes seriously wrong, the Insolvency Service and the UK corporate governance code only work to a certain point, because the enforceability just is not there.”
“My right hon. Friend is 100% right. I hope the Minister will come back with plans for more detailed reforms of the audit industry in due course. I will finish on the point about the three reports that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned. Lord Sikka provided three incredibly detailed reports a few years ago: one on the reform of regulatory architecture, one on reform of the audit industry and one on reform of the UK corporate governance regime. He did that along with a whole team of accountants and industry experts. The points made in those reports are as valid today as they were then, and they are non-partisan. I hope the Minister will take time to read those reports when he is bored over the weekend, and will take some pointers from them that he can take forward in Government policy.”
“The Centre of Mental Health estimates that mental health conditions make up 28% of all referrals, but services receive only 13% of NHS funding. The Health Foundation found that the lack of funding meant that just four in 10 people seeking help would be able to receive it. The sad fact is that it makes no economic sense not to increase investment in the NHS and funding of NHS mental health services. As the Mental Health Foundation states: “Poor mental health costs the UK a staggering £118 billion per year, but much of this is preventable.” I welcome wholeheartedly the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and I will support it. The Government must recognise this crisis, properly fund our NHS mental health services, and properly recruit those staff and pay them the wages that they deserve.”