Jeff Smith
MP for Manchester Withington · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is making a typically entertaining and informative speech. I wonder whether she would agree that, from the customer’s point of view, there does not appear to be that much difference between tiered pricing and dynamic pricing—it is just that when the cheap seats have gone, they have to pay the premium.”
“Researchers tell me, however, that the barriers the current system puts in place really restrict research. Research involving schedule 1 controlled substances generally requires a Home Office licence, and the bureaucracy and inertia in the system adds delay, cost and an administrative burden to the extent that research grants are being lo…”
“Clauses 5 and 6 place duties on the Secretary of State to promote patient involvement, patient choice and innovation. My new clauses 86 and 87 would apply those principles to psychedelic-assisted therapy treatments involving schedule 1 controlled substances.”
“In 2025 the Government accepted the ACMD recommendations in principle. There is supposed to be a pilot of a proposed extension to test operational feasibility, but that has not happened. The Government said the policy work was under way and that further plans would be published in due course, but without a timetable for implementation.”
“The 2022 Canadian special access programme has allowed clinicians to request restricted drugs, including psilocybin and MDMA, to treat those conditions. We can learn from those experiences.”
“I think rural and coastal communities can be encouraged by the success of the city visitor charge in Manchester, where we have raised £10 million for investment in advertising, tourism and cleaning the city. Will the Minister join me in rejecting the scaremongering and reminding people that this is a purely permissive measure?”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Jeff Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. As somebody who worked in nightclubs for 25-plus years, let me tell the Minister that this is a recipe for chaos on the doors of nightclubs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said—and as I said to the Minister the other day—the Night Time Industries Association has said that this will cripple the industry. This industry has been massively hard hit and it relies on walk-up trade; this is going make it impossible for nightclubs to run. Let me ask the Minister two questions. First, how does he define a nightclub, as opposed to a late bar with a DJ playing music? Secondly, there is no rationale for this—as the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) said, nightclubs have been open for weeks—so why close them now?”
“We have heard a number of times that a key priority for the region should be improving connectivity. The eastern leg of HS2 is vital for economic growth in the east midlands. The potential indefinite postponement would be a massive blow to the economies of the cities and counties of the region. I look forward to assurances from the Minister that the leg will go ahead as promised, as requested by many Members this morning. If this is another broken promise from the Government, it will be a betrayal of the communities in the east midlands.”
“That £1,000 a year is money that could be spent on local high streets in the east midlands. Instead, it will be taken out of the economy just as we are trying to recover. It is clear that East Midlands airport is key for jobs in the region and future economic ambitions but, like other regional airports, it has suffered through the lack of an adequate sectoral support package from the Government. The Labour party has advocated a sectoral deal for aviation that protects jobs and the wider supply chain, safeguards the environment, and ensures that companies benefitting from the aviation sector rebase their tax affairs in the UK. If regional airports such as East Midlands airport are not given adequate help through the challenges of covid, the local economies that depend on them will be undermined.”
“Having imposed £15 billion cuts on local authorities over the past 10 years, unfortunately the Government recently broke their promise to compensate local authorities fully for their costs in tackling covid-19, leaving some of them with very big funding gaps and putting local services at risk. The piecemeal funding pots that we have heard about, such as the levelling-up fund, which pit regions and nations against each other for vital funding, do not make up for a decade of cuts to local communities. We need support for people who live in the region, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East. The universal credit change will hit almost 390,000 families in the east midlands, pushing many into hardship. Cutting the budgets of those families who need it most is not only wrong, but bad economics.”
“We also heard about the development at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station site, which is another important growth opportunity for the region. There is good partnership work going on, driven by groups such as the midlands engine partnership and Midlands Connect. We also heard about the plans for the east midlands freeport. Many might question the overall strategy of freeports creating growth across the country, but it is undoubtedly a good opportunity with potential for the east midlands region. We have not focused so much today on the hard work carried out by local authorities, which have been at the frontline fighting the covid pandemic, and will now play a crucial role in their communities’ recovery. They need to be funded properly, so that they can play their full role as place-makers, driving growth for the region.”
“People in the east midlands are significantly more likely to be employed in manufacturing than in the rest of the UK. That is a distinctive, important and good feature of the region, although a number of those jobs are in lower-value manufacturing, which is more susceptible to economic shocks. With traditional manufacturing in decline, it is important to consider alternative options for the future. We have heard from several Members about good work already underway, seeking to boost jobs and prosperity in the east midlands, and release the potential of the region that we have heard about so often. The importance of East Midlands airport, along with the rail freight terminal, is key. A number of Members talked about that and the work of the East Midlands Development Corporation in aiming to link the HS2 station at Toton with the airport.”
“The east midlands does not operate as a single entity, with a regional centre, like my own in Greater Manchester, which is why so many Members from different parties have spoken about how vital transport links are, which I will return to shortly. It is instructive to compare the east midlands with other regions. Compared with the rest of the country, east midlands GVA growth figures are lower and there are lower levels of investment, especially Government investment. Productivity is lower, more people than average are in insecure work, a higher number on zero-hours contracts and median gross pay is lower. Of the 446,000 key workers across the east midlands, 40% are paid less than £10 an hour. There is work to do to fulfil the great potential of the region.”
“Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) made an important point about the cut to universal credit, which is taking money out of local economies. She also exposed the lack of transport investment in the region over a long period of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) talked about the importance of HS2 and focused on the inequality of transport spending in the region—not just on rail, but on things such as the Staveley bypass. Road transport is important as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) talked about the impact of Government policy and cuts, the vital importance for the future of green jobs, and transparent devolution deals. We have heard lots of good words about the future of the east midlands economy.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David, and I thank you for the opportunity to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing the debate. I agree with him that the Government need to come down on the side of investment and innovation in the region. I also thank the other speakers, who made important contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) gave us an important reality check on the Government’s actions and made the vital point that, in order for the economy to flourish, work needs to be properly paid. We need stability and skills, without which businesses and the economy cannot thrive. My hon.”
“It must mean good-quality, secure work and job creation that helps us meet our climate ambitions. It has to mean a fair social security system for anyone who cannot work, whether due to economic shocks or illness. Future economic success must mean the Government giving local areas the investment that they need to recover from the covid pandemic and rebuild strongly, with opportunities on everybody’s doorstep. We cannot afford any more broken promises from this Government. That is our challenge to the Minister.”
“There is engineering and manufacturing expertise in the east midlands that should be well placed to make the most of those new opportunities, and the east midlands should get its share of the jobs of the future. Labour wants to see the east midlands thrive, along with our regions up and down the country. We need to address regional imbalance. The UK economy was already highly regionally imbalanced—perhaps the most regionally imbalanced major economy in Europe—well before covid hit. The pandemic restrictions have made existing inequalities worse. The uneven impact of lockdown on different sectors means that some areas have been much more affected than others, and the Government’s ill-defined levelling-up concept needs to address those inequalities.”
“A Government commitment to those kinds of transport investment would be real evidence of levelling up for the east midlands, which has, as we have heard a number of times, the lowest transport investment in the UK. The final issue that I will mention, though certainly not the least of them, is the emergence of new green industries, which has, again, been mentioned by those on both sides of the Chamber. Labour believes that it should be a priority of the Government to bring forward a green new deal and an ambitious package. We are proposing £30 billion of capital investment to support the creation of up to 400,000 new low-carbon jobs.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that the Minister is listening to his own side, not just to Labour. We have been making this case for a long time, but it has been made strongly, as my hon. Friend says, on both sides of the Chamber. There is a strong view that the biggest single thing that the Government could do for the east midlands economy would be to improve transport and connectivity, including the full electrification of the midland main line—a continuation through Leicester up to Sheffield. Apart from the environmental benefits, that would reduce journey times north and south. There is the Robin Hood line and the restoration of direct trains from Leicester to Coventry: the only significant cities anywhere in the UK that do not have a direct rail connection.”
“The Minister must recognise that climate inaction is not just a disaster for the planet but has a huge financial cost and economic consequences. We cannot dodge the critical decisions that we need to decarbonise the economy any more. How exactly will the Government hardwire our net zero targets into every decision in the upcoming spending review?”
“On vaccine passports for nightclubs, the Minister said yesterday: “The best way we can keep those industries open…is to work with the industry”. Does he recognise that industry representatives do not support the proposal? The Night Time Industries Association has said that “it will cripple the industry.” Not only is it impractical and indeed unworkable, but it could potentially lead to an increase in illegal events, raves and large house parties—the kind of super-spreader events that the Minister is worried about. In those cases, there will be fewer safety measures. This is a hammer blow for an industry that has suffered more than almost any other over the past year and a half. Will he take its concerns into consideration and think very carefully before bringing such a proposal forward?”
“The Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I know she wants to find a solution to this problem. I tried to get in earlier when she referred to some parents who had used medical cannabis and found that some of it worked and some of it did not work. It sounds as though an evidence base was being created there. I understand that she does not want to create a system for all our medical regulation based on observational trials, but there are many experts who say that randomised control trials will not work for cannabis and we need another way of getting the evidence. Given that we clearly have a system that is not working, is there not a case for this particular condition and this particular type of medicine being a special case? We need to find a different way of creating such an evidence base to give the clinicians comfort.”
“As the Minister implied, students currently in year 10 have arguably been hit harder than any other cohort, having missed most of year 9 and had a hugely disrupted year 10. So is it not ridiculous to reintroduce performance tables, given the massive disparity of the impact of covid on different schools and different pupil cohorts? He said that fairness is the guiding principle, but how can the Government possibly build fairness into performance tables for 2022?”
“In his speech last week on levelling up, the Prime Minister made a plea to the public to email him with ideas for how to flesh out his so far very vague concept of levelling up. Can the Minister tell us how many emails the Prime Minister has received so far and whether any of them contained a plan with any more substance than the Government’s?”
“Labour supports funding for every town and every region, and that has to be done transparently, fairly and with a say for local communities. Through the towns fund the Government are making promises to a minority of English towns, with many of those in need losing out. The Government need to set out a detailed account of exactly what the towns fund aims to achieve, what it will fund and, importantly, how it will measure success. Piecemeal pots of funding do not make up for a decade of cuts to local communities. Now, more than ever, we need to give all our local areas the funding they need to recover from the covid pandemic. The real yardstick of success will be if this Government put opportunities on everyone’s doorsteps. We have seen little evidence so far that the towns fund will do that.”
“This is, after all, the same Department that has announced a levelling-up fund that again pits regions and nations against each other for crucial funding and that will hand money to wealthy areas held by Cabinet Ministers ahead of areas in greater need. The methodology prioritised the Chancellor’s own local authority for regeneration funding ahead of more deprived areas, such as Barnsley, Flintshire, Coventry, Plymouth, Salford and the Wirral. Prioritised constituencies included those of four other members of the Cabinet. This Government cannot repair even a small part of what they have destroyed over the past 10 years using piecemeal pots of funding, let alone build back better from the covid pandemic.”
“In a written answer earlier this week, the Minister said: “The Department will publish a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the Towns Fund. This strategy will set out the evidenced framework and theory of change, which underpin the evaluation methodologies for the Towns Fund, a work plan, timeline and key milestones, and a bibliography.” Two years after they announced the fund, the Government say they “will publish” their strategy, so they have still not laid out how they are going to monitor and evaluate the fund. Any funding for our towns is better than no funding at all, and Labour supports those who have been lucky enough to get something, but what about the majority who have not?”
“In fact, there is a concern that, with so many delays, some projects may not be viable by the time the Government have finally stumped up the money. The Government say they are aiming to deliver town deals by 2025-26. In a time of severe economic downturn following the pandemic and with support such as furlough ending and universal credit being cut, we need to support the covid recovery with a sense of urgency and boost local areas in that context. It only fuels the suspicion that the Government are more interested in stretching out the announcements when it most suits them, rather than urgently stimulating local growth and job creation. If we want the towns fund to help with the recovery, how do we know if it is working?”
“This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and has risked the Civil Service’s reputation for integrity and impartiality.” If the Government have nothing to hide, why not be transparent about the decision-making process? For those who have been lucky enough to get some funding, it is now almost exactly two years since the towns fund was announced and the Government are still vague about what they actually hope to achieve using the fund and how they intend to measure success. Since the fund was announced, only 5% of the money committed so far—£90 million out of the promised £3.6 billion—has been paid out. Heads of terms have been agreed with only 53 of the towns, and it is unclear whether one single project has been delivered in full.”
“Ministers refused to consult elected mayors directly on the process concerning towns in their regions, despite the Government’s own officials explicitly recommending that they do so. Investigating the allocation process for the towns fund in November 2020, the Public Accounts Committee said: “The selection process was not impartial…The justification offered by ministers for selecting individual towns are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority…The Department has also not been open about the process it followed and it did not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns.”
“However, we do not know if it has been administered fairly because, typically of this Government, the allocations process is—I am being generous here—opaque. Let us not forget that a town in the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s own constituency of Newark was selected for funding under the towns fund by the then Communities Minister, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), while the current Secretary of State selected Darwen in the former Minister’s constituency. The allocation should have been a fair and open process but instead Ministers seem to have stitched up back-room deals that aim to funnel money into relatively wealthy areas and away from those who need it most.”
“After several years of kicking the can down the road, the plan for reform, which the Prime Minister claimed he had already prepared, has not been forthcoming. Families, care staff and local authorities are crying out for that plan. Most recently the Government appear to have confirmed our worst fear: the Chancellor intends to proceed with the £20 cut to universal credit from September, which will push more than half a million people, including 200,000 children, into poverty. How can the Government claim they are about levelling up one day and plunge some of our least well-off citizens into difficulties the next? That is not the way to recover from covid-19. Even if administered fairly, the towns fund would only act as a sticking plaster over these problems.”
“I hardly need to point out that that outweighs the one-off £3.6 billion towns fund that will benefit a minority of English towns. The pandemic has heaped even more pressure on local councils, but the Government have broken their promise to fully compensate them for the costs of tackling covid-19, leaving a further gaping funding gap to cover and forcing many to raise council tax to cover costs, making local families pay. The long-term decline of the UK’s high streets, with footfall down 10% since 2012, has complex reasons behind it and has left around one in 10 high street shops standing empty, even before coronavirus hit. In the past decade, 773 libraries, 750 youth centres, 1,300 children’s centres and 835 public toilets have closed down largely because of austerity. In addition, our social care system is in crisis.”
“We have heard about the importance of reasonable private rents, the need for reform of business rates, shopping local and wider access to funds. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) made important points about areas that have been left behind under austerity. Labour wants to see towns up and down the country thrive, and we are pleased for any community that has managed to receive funding from the towns fund, but we have to put this into context. There is a reason why so many towns are struggling, in desperate need of investment, and why regional inequality is rife in this country and high streets at breaking point. It goes back far beyond the covid crisis. The Government like to talk about levelling up, but over the last 10 years they have imposed £15 billion cuts on local authorities.”
“It is good to see you in the chair, Mr Rosindell. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing the debate. Southport is a town I have enjoyed visiting but I did not know it was the model for Parisian boulevards—never let it be said that Westminster Hall debates are not educational. I agree about the need for good connectivity to Manchester so that my constituents can enjoy the Southport Eye, and I look forward to seeing it. This is an important topic and a useful opportunity to look closely at what the Government have promised under the town deals, how much has been delivered and to consider whether this the right way to drive recovery from covid-19. I thank the Members who have spoken in this debate.”
“We have received supplementary evidence from the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation suggesting that a way around this problem might be to amend the Bill, effectively to exclude it from section 47 of the 1988 Act. I am interested to know whether the Government might consider such an amendment on Report to give local authorities and businesses reassurance.”
“Local authorities need reassurance that they can; otherwise, strictly speaking, all the local schemes will need to be set up and be running by the end of September. As of this morning, we have the legislative timetable until the summer recess, and while the Government thought it appropriate to schedule two days for the Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill, they could not find time for the remaining stages of the Bill we are discussing today. Given that there will be Lords consideration, as well as the conference recess, I do not see how the Bill will get through all its stages before the middle to end of October. If the Minister can correct me on the timescales, I will happily give way. If not, I hope that he will explain how this will affect the timescale for payments.”
“I also wonder whether the Minister can address concerns raised during the evidence sessions about the timing of the legislation and its impact on the release of funding. As we heard on Tuesday from Adrian Blaylock of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Sarah Pickup of the Local Government Association, there is a concern about timing related to section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In essence, a local authority cannot take financial decisions more than six months after the financial year to which the decision relates. As we know, the majority of covid restrictions applied during financial year 2020-21 rather than 2021-22, so there is a question about whether a local authority can grant these reliefs to cover losses incurred during the 2020-21 financial year.”
“The consensus appears to be that we simply will not know whether it is enough or not until the Government publish the guidance for the scheme—something that businesses and local authorities are hoping happens urgently. Even though it is usual for guidance to be published after the accompanying legislation has completed its passage through Parliament, there seems to be no reason why the Government could not publish draft guidance now and an indicative figure on the amount for each local authority immediately. The Opposition strongly urge the Government to do so, and given that the passing of the legislation is not actually required in order for the £1.5 billion to be released, we encourage the Government to get on with it quickly. There are businesses out there in real financial difficulty that are desperate for rapid help.”
“28, Q41.] Heathrow, for example, had losses in 2020 exceeding £2 billion, including a business rates bill of £120 million— the biggest in the UK. It has been given £8 million in business rates relief. If the £1.5 billion pot is to support large airports too, it would appear to be inadequate. If not, what are larger airports supposed to do as an alternative to claiming for MCC, and will the Government come forward with further funding for large airports and critical infrastructure? Even taking the airports and critical infrastructure out of the equation, there is serious concern about the £1.5 billion figure, which is shared by some of the experts we heard from at the evidence sessions earlier in the week. We have since had written evidence from the car parking sector, which is another one that has expressed real concerns.”
“I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the £1.5 billion fund is supposed to cover airports as well as all the other businesses that have missed out. During the evidence sessions, David Magor, the chief executive officer of the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, said of the £1.5 billion: “the amount does not appear to be sufficient to meet the desires of all the ratepayers who had outstanding challenges and large assessments, like the airports. The challenge for the Government is to ensure that those particular ratepayers are satisfied.” –– [ Official Report, Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Public Bill Committee, 6 July 2021; c.”
“On Second Reading, we raised concerns about whether the £1.5 billion package that goes alongside the Bill would be enough to support all those businesses that have missed out on rates relief and other support so far, and the Government still have not clarified how they arrived at that figure or who exactly they envisage it supporting. It would be helpful if the Minister referred to that in his response. I raise the example of large airports, which have been among the sectors worst affected by the pandemic. They pay huge amounts of business rates, but have been able to access only limited rates relief. Many were planning to put in MCC claims to try to recoup some of that money and stay afloat, but this legislation rules that out.”
“The uncertainty that would be caused by a potential income reduction as a result of large numbers of MCCs could cause real problems, particularly following such a difficult period for local government, marred by covid pressures after 10 years of austerity and broken promises from the Government about their support. As I said during the evidence sessions, this legislation can be considered to be shifting the financial risk, or burden, from local government to the national Government by means of support for businesses. That seems reasonable, given the financial difficulties that local government is facing, but it is reasonable only if the funding available is sufficient to guarantee businesses the support they need.”
“To go alongside this legislation, the Government have announced an additional relief fund for businesses that have so far not benefited from any rates relief, such as those in the supply chain of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. In principle, that seems a sensible way of administering targeted support without the need for MCC claims, but questions remain: first on the adequacy of the £1.5 billion figure, especially for certain sectors such as large airports, and secondly on the guidance and eligibility criteria for the fund. We welcome that clause 1 gives local authorities some guarantee that their income from business rates will remain reasonably stable for the immediate future. With business rates forming such a substantial part of local authorities’ income, they need that stability.”
“We appreciate that a large number of covid-related appeals could lead to what has been described as an effective shadow revaluation, which could put a real strain on the Valuation Office Agency, when its time and expertise would be better used on the upcoming general revaluation of business rates in 2023. There is also a risk that new MCC-related changes would have to be made every time Government restrictions on businesses changed. It remains to be seen whether we have seen the last of the restrictions and business closures as a result of the pandemic—we hope we have—but if not, a further wave of such applications in the wake of further restrictions could cause future problems for the VOA.”
“It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. May I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday? What better way to spend a birthday than in a Bill Committee? I am grateful to him for setting out the rationale for clause 1, which would rule out covid-related material change in circumstances claims for business rates appeals. As we outlined on Second Reading, the Opposition broadly recognise the rationale for the Bill as a whole, and we accept the logic for the provisions in clause 1. Material change in circumstances claims related to covid restrictions would not be the most effective way to provide help for business that have been—I hope only temporarily—badly hit by the pandemic. Indeed, many of those who most need the extra help might struggle with the time-consuming process of such an appeal.”
“Does the Minister accept that there is absolutely no reason to wait for the Bill to pass to put the scheme in place? The Government could distribute the £1.5 billion today, if they wanted.”
“I thank the Minister. Obviously, this is a technical clause that we have no problem with. I just want to make this point again: the extent and the commencement are important, but the distribution of the £1.5 billion to businesses that desperately need help does not rest on the passing of the Bill and its clauses. The commencement of the help to businesses could start as soon as the guidance is ready.”
“Unless the Insolvency Service is able to properly resource and ensure that this work is undertaken, we have a problem when we try to pursue those who are responsible for the loss of between £16 billion and £27 billion. This potentially unknown—we will find out when the PwC report comes in—and potentially large gap will need to be addressed in terms of where the money went and who was responsible for causing that money to be dissipated.”
“In the interim, I think this kind of work would fall into that part of their function. My point about hammering out or ensuring funding is in place is partly in response to some comments on funding made on Second Reading of the Bill. Since the Companies Act 1928, and perhaps most famously in the Cork report of 1982, this question of whether the disqualification regime is properly funded has always existed. Its lack of efficacy between 1928 and 1982 was put down to a lack of resourcing. That point is very important, because in essence this is the system that protects the limited liability form, the engine of capitalism that drives through our commercial activities.”
“Q Thank you Dr Tribe, that was a very helpful overview, and pretty unqualified support for the principle of the Bill. It did seem that your main concern is about resourcing it. You said that until appropriate funding is handed out to the Insolvency Service, the Bill will, at least, be a deterrent. Do you have a view as to the nature of the problem, and the funding that the Insolvency service would need to actually make this work? Dr Tribe: It is my impression that this new work to deal with directors of dissolved companies who have potentially behaved in an unfit manner would be subsumed into the general run of business of the disqualification unit at the Insolvency Service. They prioritise the most egregious cases, or those that help send out a public protection signal to the public.”
“What the Insolvency Service wants to do in terms of prioritising threats to the system will depend on its internal guidance.”
“Q Thank you, that is helpful. Just as a follow-up, are you concerned that there might be a focus on making use of these new powers at the expense of current work on other insolvent companies? Dr Tribe: Not necessarily. Going back to my prioritisation point, the Insolvency Service obviously has finite resources that it needs to deploy in the best way possible—I suppose that is a problem for many public bodies— if other types of abuse manifest over time. The most obvious and recent problem is the bounce back loan phoenixism problem, but in due course other things might come about that require us to tinker with our corporate and insolvency law so that we have an effective system that maintains trust and confidence in it.”
“It is an interesting point, but I think you have a quicker public protection mechanism process that you can do now that gets you to a less costly enforcement outcome.”
“Each one of those 33 will have cost it court fees, process fees at Companies House and so on, which means there is this extra layer of procedure that it has to get through before it can ultimately investigate the unfitness activity. I think the dissolution reform in this legislation ensures that that extra layer of bureaucracy—getting the companies back on the register, through restoration, then going through the insolvency processes—is cleared out, and we move straight to the enforcement section. The other problem with restoration is that you perhaps undermine the integrity of the register itself if you take 33 companies off it, but you then want to put them back on because you need to go through the steps that we want for enforcement and so on.”
“Q I will just ask one final question. We have had some written evidence suggesting that the current regime is adequate. If you do not mind my quoting from it, it says: “Applying the current controls properly, putting dissolved companies into liquidation and publicising that new policy will be a far more effective deterrent...That requires no new legislation at all.” Do you have a view on that? Dr Tribe: The trouble is that to get to that liquidation point, you have to go through the restoration stage. I think that submission might have also talked about the idea of restoring an entity to the register and then going through that insolvency route. I think the Insolvency Service did 33 of those in 2019—pre the bounce back loan issue and pre corona, obviously.”