Treasury Spending: Grants to Devolved Institutions

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Does the hon. Gentleman’s point of order relate to the Division?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It does.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman may make his point of order.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Madam Deputy Speaker, do you suppose that the Scottish National party would be calling so many Divisions this evening if it was Scotland that was playing an important football match?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s point of order relates to the Division, but it is not of course a point of order. I just have a fervent hope that, one day, Scotland will be playing an important football match.

Once again, I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

(3) the sum granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament be reduced by £4,632,925,000.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I think the Ayes have it. [Interruption.] I think the Ayes have it. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Order. I have tried to discern from the voices whether the Ayes or the Noes have more votes, but I am unable to do so owing to the extreme number of voices involved. I therefore have no option but to call a Division.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

My constituent Kashif Shabir, whom I have spoken about in several debates on this issue, has been the victim of exactly that, with Lloyds bank and Alder King surveyors in Bristol, resulting in the loss of his £10 million business. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the bosses of both those organisations, Mr Horta-Osório and Mr Martyn Jones, should now proactively take steps to offer—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, who I appreciate is making a very important point. I must point out, however, that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who is moving the motion, is supposed to take about 15 minutes. He has a lot to say that is of importance, and he has been very generous in allowing interventions, but hon. Members must not think I have not noticed that the people who have intervened will then go away, while the people who have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate will have only four minutes and may need to stay in the Chamber until the end of the debate, which is patently unfair. I cannot allow a long intervention. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Lady to ask a quick question, but it is not in order for hon. Members to make an intervention in lieu of a speech, thus preventing other Members from making a speech. I am trying to ensure fairness, and it is really quite difficult to do so. As I had not previously warned hon. Members, I will allow the hon. Lady to finish her intervention—I realise that she has something important to say—and I will allow the hon. Gentleman to respond to it and to finish his speech. I hope that everyone has got the picture: this is the only way to try to be fair to everyone.

[Jo Stevens]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that the banks and the surveyors should proactively take steps now to offer redress to my constituent and to many other constituents of Members on both sides of the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As I have said, we are pushed for time this afternoon. There will therefore be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, initially of five minutes although it may have to be reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid that we must now reduce the time limit to four minutes. I am sorry for not giving the next speaker, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), any notice of that.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend amplifies the point I was making. One last point to make is that there is a need for legislative change to allow credit unions, in particular, to offer loans for cars and—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman comes to his last point, there seems to be a lack of understanding generally in the Chamber about what happens at this stage in a Bill. I cannot put a time limit on speeches; this is Report stage. We have two groups of amendments to go through, and we have until 6 o’clock. Many questions have been asked, and Members will expect the Minister to have some time to answer them.

If we go on as we have done for the last two hours, there will be no debate on the second group of amendments. It will not be up to me to explain to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) why she does not get to make her speech on her amendment in the next group. Every minute that people take in this House takes away from another colleague. Of course, there are people who prefer to hear the sound of their own voice, who only want to hear their own arguments and who will not give time for others, but I am warning now that if speeches take more than three minutes, we will get to a stage whereby the second group of amendments will not be heard. I cannot stop the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) finishing his speech—he can take as long as he likes, as far as the Chair is concerned—but I am sure that he will have a view to helping his colleagues.

[Gareth Thomas]

I had finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am delighted to hear it.

[Stephen Lloyd]

You make a salient point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here for two hours, so I agreed with a lot of what you said.

I am glad that we are finally concluding our consideration of the Bill. I rise to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 9, as well to new clause 7, amendment (a) to amendment 10 and amendment 34. The Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled, but we believe that they do not go far enough.

The Bill as introduced in the other place had three major flaws. First, the single financial guidance body had no explicit function to protect consumers. Secondly, the Government missed an opportunity to ban cold calling by claims management companies, as they had promised to do in their manifesto. The ban should also have extended to other financial products. Thirdly, there were no safeguards to ensure that people received financial guidance before they accessed or transferred their pension benefits.

I pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleague in the other place, Lord Sharkey, whose amendments to the Bill paved the way for the concessions that we have today. I know that he and others from across the political divide have been lobbying Ministers intensely behind the scenes. It would have been nice if the concessions had come earlier in the proceedings, but there we go.

My support for the concessions is not absolute. In particular, under clause 34, claims management companies must act as though all UK phone numbers are registered with the Telephone Preference Service. As the House will be aware, however, the TPS has proven to be somewhat ineffectual. The Information Commissioner’s Office received more than 11,000 reports of cold calls from people on the TPS register last year. We believe that the Financial Conduct Authority has more teeth to enforce a ban on cold calling by claims management companies. For that reason, we support new clause 8, which would put Lord Sharkey’s amendments back into the Bill. The other amendments to new clause 9 would have a similar effect, allowing the FCA to police the ban on pensions cold calling.

Government new clause 9 allows Ministers to ban pensions cold calling and, if they do not, they must lay a statement before Parliament each year. Although I would love to name and shame Ministers every year until a ban comes into effect, I would rather that they just got on with it. Amendment (a) to the new clause would make it a legal requirement for the Government to ban cold calling, rather than just an optional extra.

New clause 4 allows the Government to ban cold calling in relation to any other financial services product after receiving advice from the SFGB. I welcome the amendment, but Lord Sharkey and I are worried that the SFGB’s duty to report on cold calling “from time to time” is too weak. I have tabled amendment (a) to amendment 10 to ask the SFGB to publish its report on cold calling at least every two years. This duty should not fall quietly by the wayside.

I also encourage the Government to accept amendment (b) to new clause 9, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). As my colleague, Lord Sharkey, pointed out in the other place, a ban on cold calling must also include a ban on the commercial use of data obtained by cold calling. This gives the Information Commissioner two bites at the cherry to punish companies flouting the ban.

I now turn to the two amendments that I tabled on income shocks. They would require the SFGB to improve the capability of the public to plan for sudden reductions in income. The issue was brought to my attention by the former Pensions Minister, Professor Steve Webb, and the Chartered Insurance Institute, to which I am very grateful. Too many people are unprepared for a sudden fall in income. The 2015 financial capability survey found that 26% of working-age adults have no savings to fall back on and that a further 29% have less than £1,000 saved. There are many reasons why income shocks could occur. Money Advice Service research from 2016 found that nearly three in four households receive an unexpected bill every year. One third of households have had to make an unexpected car repair or replacement, at a cost of £1,300 on average.

The “Improving Lives” Green Paper revealed that 1.8 million employees have a long-term sickness absence of four weeks or more in a year, yet statutory sick pay is worth less than three hours’ work a day on the national living wage. This problem is made worse because, as the FCA has noted, people with serious illnesses often have poor access to financial services, particularly insurance.

Amendments considered in the other place also touched on this issue. In response, the Government said that public preparedness for income shocks would be an aspect of the money guidance function. Although I welcome that commitment, I would like the Minister to go further. The Bill contains no specific direction for the body to improve preparedness for income shocks or any mechanism to measure the progress of the body in this regard.

The SFGB’s focus will be pulled in every direction. How will the Government convey to the SFGB the strategic priorities for the coming year, and how will Parliament and the public be able to scrutinise and evaluate that work? The Government have finally listened to the arguments made on these Benches and in the other place. I thank them for doing so, but they must now go the distance. They must take robust action to end the scourge of cold calling and protect millions of vulnerable people from sudden income shocks.

European Affairs

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I think the Opposition spokesman is still dealing with the previous intervention, and he may in due course come to another intervention.

[Paul Blomfield]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I say, I always find it interesting when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talks about the interests of the British economy. I do not know whether he is still advising readers, through the Financial Times, to get money out of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I was simply questioning the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the economy, and he will note the headline—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members, can question other Members’ political attitudes and what they say in this House. What we cannot have is one Member suggesting that another Member has said something, in writing or otherwise, which he says he did not say. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) will not question what I am saying. Mr Blomfield might like to consider just closing this down with a withdrawal of his remark about Mr Redwood.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for any offence, but I was simply quoting from the Financial Times column by the right hon. Gentleman, which said:

“Time to look further afield as UK economy hits the brakes”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is plenty of time for debate this afternoon. I hope that we can manage the debate without a formal time limit, because that will allow natural debate to occur without restriction. That will work if Members speak for approximately 10 minutes each. If anybody speaks for much longer than that, we will have to have a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, she had a lot of points to cover. It is also obvious to me that nobody except the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has taken the least notice of my exhortation to take about 10 minutes. If I were to impose a time limit now, it would be seven minutes, but I am still going to try to proceed without a time limit, and I hope that Members will tailor their remarks accordingly. I do not suffer if somebody makes a long speech—more than twice as long as the 10 minutes I recommended—but other colleagues do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) did very well on her 10 minutes, but I give in—we need to have a formal time limit of eight minutes.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Peter Dowd.

[Peter Dowd]

Very little that I have heard from the other side in this debate has convinced me that we should withdraw our new clause—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I have made a mistake, in that I thought the Minister had already addressed the House on this group. I also beg the Minister’s pardon.

[Mel Stride]

There was a ripple of dissatisfaction when you failed to call me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was almost imperceptible. Thank you for correcting your error.

In this debate we have heard about a range of issues, including the changes the Finance Bill makes to the bank levy, the taxation of private finance initiatives, and tax avoidance and evasion. I will respond to each in turn, starting with the bank levy. Opposition Members have raised a number of objections to the changes to the levy made by the Finance Bill and to the Government’s broader approach to bank taxation. These are unjustified. This Government remain committed to ensuring that banks make an appropriate additional tax contribution, beyond that paid by other businesses, that reflects the unique risks they pose to the UK financial system and to the wider economy.

I shall address some of the arguments put forward by the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which I felt focused far too much on the bank levy. It is indeed declining, but there is good reason for that. In 2015, when we took the relevant decisions on this, we recognised that the risks presented by our banks had eased quite considerably. Indeed, the Bank of England has recently carried out rigorous stress testing on the banks, and that was the first occasion on which not a single bank failed its stress test. That is indicative of the fact that one of the raisons d’être for the bank levy has started to recede. That is to say that the banks are less of a risk than they were before, and the charges on the assets and liabilities that they hold are therefore becoming less relevant. The hon. Gentleman did not focus so much on the surcharge to the banking tax, which came in from 1 January 2016 and which represents an additional 8% on the profitability of banks at the present time. Whereas corporations are paying 19%, we are now looking at a total rate of around 27% for banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—Annual report on relief for first-time buyers—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must prepare and lay before the House of Commons a report for each relevant period on the operation of the relief for first-time buyers introduced in Schedule 6ZA to FA 2003 not less than three months after the end of the relevant period.

(2) The report shall include, in particular, information in respect of the relevant period on—

(a) the number of first-time buyers benefiting from the relief,

(b) the number of purchases benefiting from the relief,

(c) the average age of first-time buyers benefiting from the relief,

(d) the effects on the operation of the private rented sector,

(e) the effects on council housing and other social housing,

(f) the effects on the supply of affordable housing, and

(g) the effects on the operation of collective investment schemes under Part 17 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘relevant period’ means—

(a) the period from 22 November 2017 to 5 April 2018,

(b) each period of 12 months beginning on 6 April during which the relief is in effect, and

(c) the period beginning on 6 April and ending with the day on which the relief ceases to have effect.”

This new clause requires an annual report on the operation of the relief for first-time buyers, including information on the beneficiaries and effects on different aspects of housing supply.

New clause 2—Review of income tax revenue—

“(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the revenue raised by the rates of income tax within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider revenue raised by the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4.

(3) A review under this section must also consider the effect on revenue of raising each of the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4 by one percentage point.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause provides for a review of the revenue raised at the rates of income tax specified by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill and the effect on revenue of raising each of those rates by one percentage point.

New clause 10—Review of retrospective VAT refunds for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority—

“(1) Within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the potential consequences of allowing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to claim VAT refunds under section 33 of VATA 1994 retrospective to the date of their establishment.

(2) The review shall consider—

(a) the administrative consequences of allowing retrospective claims, and

(b) the impact on revenue of allowing retrospective claims.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay the report of this review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission a review into what the potential consequences of allowing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to make retrospective claims for VAT refunds would be.

New clause 11—Analysis of effect of income tax rates on incentives into employment—

“(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the impact of the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4 in accordance with this section within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4 on the incentives for individuals to seek employment, including—

(a) whether those rates create, or detract from, an incentive for those not employed to enter into employment,

(b) whether those rates create, or detract from, an incentive for those currently in employment entering into new employment at a different level of income, and

(c) to what degree those rates create, or detract from, any such incentive.

(3) A review under this section must also consider those rates in the context of—

(a) National Insurance contributions,

(b) tax credits, and

(c) social security benefits.

(4) A review under this section must give separate analyses in relation to the impact of the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4 in different parts of the United Kingdom.

(5) In this section—

‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland.

(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

Government amendments 6 to 8.

Amendment 10, in clause 44, page 38, line 30, at end insert—

“(4A) In paragraph 1GE (higher rates of duty) after paragraph (3)(c) insert—

‘(d) the vehicle is not a taxi.

(3A) For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘taxi’ has the same meaning as in section 64 of the Transport Act 1980.’”

Amendment 11, page 39, line 1, after “section”, insert

“(other than those made by subsection (4A)”.

Amendment 12, page 39, line 2, at end insert—

“(8) The amendments made by subsection (4A) have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after the day on which this Act is passed.”

Amendment 13, in schedule 3, page 65, line 32, leave out from “and” to “or” in line 36 and insert

“each of the conditions in subsection (1A) is met”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 14, provides that a pension scheme cannot be de-registered on grounds of the dormancy of a single company within the scheme, but only if conditions are met in relation to the date of first registration and the trading status of participating companies.

Amendment 14, page 65, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) In section 158 (grounds for de-registration), after subsection (1), insert—

(1A) The conditions in this subsection are that—

(a) the scheme was registered in the current tax year or in the six preceding tax years,

(b) no sponsoring employer in relation to the scheme is a body corporate that is actively trading at the time that withdrawal is being considered, and

(c) no sponsoring employer in relation to the scheme is a body corporate that was actively trading for a period of at least twenty four months.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 13.

Government amendment 9.

[Anneliese Dodds]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak briefly to the SNP’s new clause 10 and to amendment 12, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), both of which the Opposition support. I will then speak in more detail about our new clauses 7 and 8.

On new clause 10, Labour Members welcome the Government’s decision to allow the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to claim retrospective VAT refunds. The measures in the new clause follow the Scottish Government’s decision in 2012 to establish a nationwide fire and rescue service for Scotland. The then Treasury Minister, who is now the Justice Secretary, wrote:

“Based on the information currently available it seems that, following the Scottish government’s planned reforms, neither the new police authority nor the fire and rescue service will be eligible for VAT refunds under Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994.”

As colleagues will know, that Government decision meant that the Scottish police and fire services lost out on VAT refunds worth more than £30 million, with the Scottish police losing out on about £26 million. To some extent, I would argue it was a sign of recklessness that, at a time of austerity, the Government effectively left Scottish firefighters and police officers to fend for themselves. While Labour Members welcome the Government’s change of heart, we recognise the need for a proper process covering retrospective claims for VAT refunds.

The review proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) would ensure that the process for VAT refunds was transparent, and that the VAT claims of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority were properly refunded by the Government. The review would also ensure that such an ill-informed decision, backed up by insubstantial reasoning, would not be allowed to happen again. That is why we support the new clause.

Amendment 12 focuses on an issue that I raised in Committee: the fact that taxi drivers with a zero-emission capable vehicle will not be exempt from vehicle excise duty until next year. As we discussed in Committee—I am sure that the Minister remembers this—taxi drivers need to purchase their car over a long period due to its relatively high cost. In many areas of the country, taxi drivers are shifting to lower or zero-emission capable taxis. I asked the Minister whether further changes were needed to the Bill so that the take-up of zero-emission capable taxis would not be choked off. I was grateful to the Minister for stating that there would be a consultation on the new measures in the spring, but I do not know whether that consultation has yet begun, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on that point. In the meantime, it seems sensible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North proposes, to prevent taxi drivers from taking a hit when they have taken an environmentally friendly choice, which has considerable financial consequences for them because the vehicles are more expensive than standard taxis.

I now come on to Labour’s new clauses 7 and 8, which would require a review of the proposed relief on stamp duty for first-time buyers, followed by an annual report on the policy’s effectiveness. The review and the report would consider the impact of the new measure on house prices and housing supply, and cover who benefits from the policy. The need for such reviews is very clear. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the measure is set out in black and white: it is likely to increase prices by 0.3% and benefit a very small number of people. In its words, the main gainers from the new stamp duty policy are people who already own property, not first-time buyers. It added that some potential first-time buyers with smaller deposits might now be able to borrow a little more, therefore allowing them to buy properties that they otherwise could not afford, but that the process would be more expensive. That is in the context in which the average price of a home in England for first-time buyers has gone up by almost £40,000 since 2010. In fact, only about 3,500 additional homes are predicted to be sold as a result of the new incentive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

No, I will not give way, because I think I have answered the point. As I say, it is very clear; the figures speak for themselves, very obviously, on this point. The point is particularly and disturbingly clear in relation to home ownership among under-45 households—so for younger people—where the number of homeowners has fallen by 1 million since 2010.

We had a debate earlier about home ownership, and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) stated, “It’s not just about home ownership. We need to think about other areas as well”. That is absolutely right. We have 1.3 million additional private renters in this country. Many on the Opposition Benches would not necessarily see that as a terrific thing; we would see it as lots of people stuck in private rented accommodation who do not want to be there, and we do not see measures in the Budget or Bill to deal with that problem.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Anneliese Dodds]

If I can end—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Ah, I was about to draw to the hon. Lady’s attention the fact that we only have an hour for this debate, but she has already counted that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do beg your pardon.

Let me end by quoting, very briefly, what I think was a devastating assessment of this policy by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), because not every Member who is present now was present then. She said:

“what is really unpopular in our country is having to step over rough sleepers while walking home. What is really unpopular in our country is having to watch other parents taking paper into schools because our schools cannot even afford the basic necessities. And what is deeply unpopular in our country is watching the number of food banks grow because jobs do not pay enough.

People will remember that while all that was going on, the Tories were busy cutting stamp duty for people who could afford to buy houses. I do not think they will ever forget that.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 867.]

Community Bank Closures

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

You certainly do.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. For many young women on a Friday night, the prospect of walking all the way out of town to a petrol station’s cashpoint may leave them vulnerable and afraid.

All that is merely a snapshot of the human impact that the decline in community bank branches is having on communities like mine. I am deeply concerned about what will happen to our towns should these branches disappear. I had hoped that the banks would share, or at least understand, that concern. Instead, when I met representatives from the Co-operative bank, which is no longer associated with the Co-operative Group, my concerns were dismissed and ignored. When I pointed out that the bank’s impact assessments were riddled with obvious inaccuracies, its representatives merely shrugged and said that it would make no difference to their decision. They treated me, and by extension my constituents, with contempt. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

The Co-operative is a bank that once distinguished itself by its commitment to ethical finance, so tell me, what is ethical about leaving a community without a lifeline and ignoring its objections? What is responsible about providing an incompetently researched impact assessment that cites nearby alternative branches that closed down a year ago? What is caring about hearing the concerns of 80-year-old men and women who have used a local branch their whole lives, and simply saying to those people, “The world has moved on—there’s an app for that now”? Let us be clear: a bank that treats people in that way cannot claim to be a “community” anything and should be embarrassed even to try.

As the statistics demonstrate, the problem is not limited to north Staffordshire. It is a national problem, certainly, but that does not mean that the hardship is evenly distributed—far from it. University of Nottingham research found that between 1995 and 2012, the areas that suffered the largest decline in branch numbers were

“characterised by unemployment rates and levels of renting from the public sector that are far above the national average”.

The researchers concluded that

“the least affluent third of the population has borne the brunt of two thirds of net closures.”

The people making those decisions might call it the reality of market forces, but I call it abandoning the people and communities that need those services the most. Whatever we choose to call it, the facts remain the same: the poorest and most vulnerable people in our country—especially those in rural or inner-city areas—are frequently discriminated against in the banks’ decision making process.

The social cost of excluding low-income consumers from mainstream financial services can be severe, and could even risk driving people into less legitimate but more visible and convenient methods of financing, including loan sharks, legal and otherwise. The costs of these closures go beyond the individual; they have long-term repercussions for the whole community. The Campaign for Community Banking Services has argued that bank closures contribute to the commercial decline of an area, as better-off consumers change their purchasing habits and begin to shop, bank and even socialise further afield. Worse still, closures are associated with a real decline in local bank lending. Growth in lending to small and medium-sized enterprises is dampened by an average of 63% in postcodes that lose a bank branch, and that figure grows to 104% for postcodes that lose the last bank in town. The impact on our high streets, on our local businesses, and on future regeneration can be devastating.

What does all that mean for towns such as Burslem, where local people are coming together to lift their community up and push back against years of decline? There was a time when the local bank was thought of as the heart of the community—perhaps it still is—so what happens to a community when it loses its heart? What happens when the monetary circulation of a town is cut off mid-beat? What happens when the last financial lifeline disappears and leaves the elderly and vulnerable without support? The world we live in is not the same as it was 10 years ago, let alone 40 or 50 years ago. Times change, technologies change, and we must change with them. But we must also do more to ensure that as the world moves, we do not leave behind those who find it hardest to keep up. We must recognise that there remains a place for community banking, local lending and face-to-face advice. That means we need the banks to take some ownership and responsibility for their loyal customer base. They need to be imaginative and consider sector and community-wide solutions, not pass the buck and blame their customers. If they will not do it voluntarily, we will have to force them to.

The banking sector has options. Banks could launch community banks that share counter facilities, like they do in parts of Spain. They could invest in multi-functional ATMs so that customers can pay in money directly, in their local communities. They could fund more extensively community-based financial education to assist people with online banking. They could even fund access to broadband in some of the harder to reach communities, so that their customers could access online banking. Yet all we have had from the sector is silence. We need to ensure that our banks are working in everyone’s interests, not just their own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated exactly what I was going to say. If the post office premises become the location of the only banking services in a village or small market town, we must ensure that they are suitable, and the Post Office needs to ensure that that is the case when it identifies premises. It must also ensure that the banking services can be provided. The online systems have been down in the post office in Arundel over the past few days and as a result there have been no banking services.

As suitable premises can often not be found, suitable post office sub-postmasters cannot be found in various villages and small market towns in my constituency. This means that there is sometimes a suspension of post office services for a period of months, even though the Post Office’s policy is that there will be a post office outlet in these communities. That cannot happen if the post offices become increasingly important owing to the fact that they are providing banking facilities as well as all the other important facilities that they provide for the local community.

We need some more creative thinking. We cannot just allow the banks to step away and absent themselves from their responsibilities to ensure better services in this regard. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. The Government do have a role to play, by stepping in where the market is not working properly. The market is not working because there is insufficient demand in some areas for banking services in their traditional form, but those services are still important to local communities.

We must remember that local high streets are already under great stress. High streets in rural areas have really been suffering from the impact of globalisation and competition from online retail services. It is very difficult for small businesses to keep their heads above water as it is, so banking services are very important for them. If the Government’s objective is to maintain the vibrancy of these high streets—and I think it is—we need some active measures to ensure that post offices are promoting the best banking services and that these services are well publicised. We need banks to step up to the plate and contribute to ensure that the banking services can be universal and just as good as the services that were provided before. All those things can be done.

I recently had a useful meeting to discuss the issues with the Post Office’s senior management and the Minister’s predecessor, who acknowledged all these points. I know that the Government are concerned to ensure that banking services are provided. We must look forward to what can be created using the existing post office network and ensure that services are provided properly. It does not help to look backwards and think that we can somehow set a retail banking model in aspic, when it is actually failing because it does not provide the services necessary for the wider community and only supplies a very small number of customers. We need banking services in these areas, and they could be provided more creatively and innovatively. The situation needs a bit of Government help, but we also need the banks to play their part.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Just before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I ought to point out, for the sake of clarity, that we are in very unusual circumstances today because the timing of this business has changed and changed and changed again. I appreciate that this is the last day before a recess, and that Members—especially those with long distances to travel—are in some difficulty. I have therefore allowed far more leniency than is usual, first in the timing of people arriving for the beginning of the debate and, secondly, in the timing of their departure, either before or after the wind-ups. I would like to make it clear to the House that this does not create a precedent—absolutely not. We have a combination of circumstances today, which is highly unusual and is why I have allowed leniency. That will not be the case on other occasions.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on 31 October 2017, on The work of the Financial Conduct Authority, HC 475; Written evidence received by the Treasury Committee, on The work of the Financial Conduct Authority, HC 475; Correspondence between the Chair of the Treasury Committee and (a) the Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority and (b) the Chief Executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, relating to the report into the Royal Bank of Scotland Global Restructuring Group, reported to the House and published on 14 September, 17 October, 25 October, 31 October, 28 November 2017 and 17 January 2018.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Before we begin today’s debates, I should point out to the House, though it is obvious, that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon, and we obviously have limited time—just under five hours—for two important and heavily subscribed debates. Sometimes on Thursdays, we are a little bit lenient with time, but the recommendation from the Backbench Business Committee is that the person moving a motion should take around 15 minutes of the House’s time. Over the last few weeks, that has risen to well over half an hour, but today I am going to enforce the 15-minutes—or thereabouts—limit. That means about 17 minutes, not 27. I should also warn the House that, after the motion has been moved, there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches, initially of five minutes, but that is likely to fall to four minutes. This is good; it is because there is so much interest in the subjects that we are debating this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There will now be a time limit of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I remind the House that there are no extra minutes. There are only 24 hours in a day, and we cannot add more minutes by taking interventions. The minutes have to come from somewhere else. Gosh, everyone could do with a spell in the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes.

Christmas Adjournment

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

On behalf of the whole House, I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his kind words. It is a great pleasure to wish everybody a happy and peaceful Christmas.

I am afraid that my first consideration has had to be to put a time limit on speeches because, as the House knows, we are quite limited this afternoon. We begin with a time limit of seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I have had a nod.

My second issue concerns a mental health condition called depersonalisation disorder. At least one of my constituents is a sufferer, and she has asked me to share her story with the House. Since she was 18, my constituent has lived for years in a continuous state of detachment. The world and her own life do not feel real. She lives in a dream, performing actions on autopilot, and she sometimes does not even recognise herself in the mirror. It is terrifying.

The disorder is under-researched and very poorly understood, and it can take eight to 12 years to get the right diagnosis. The consequences of a misdiagnosis can be dreadful, because anti-psychotic, anti-anxiety or antidepressant medications do not help and can make the condition markedly worse. As one sufferer, Sarah, has explained:

“Relationships…lose their essential quality… You know you love your family, but you know it academically—rather than feeling it in the normal way.”

I would genuinely find it very difficult to live if I had this disorder; I know I could not do so.

With swift diagnosis and specialist treatment, patients can have a real hope of remission, but existing NHS provision is woefully inadequate. There is only one specialist unit, based at the Maudsley Hospital, and many patients wait years for funding to attend it, while others are refused funding. The service is anyway only for adults, even though the condition typically begins in a person’s early teens. May I ask the Minister for a meeting with the Department of Health to discuss this further? Again, I would be very grateful to him if he helped that request on its way.

Finally, I wish to mention fixed odds betting terminals. As we have established in this debate, without any contradiction, Newham is a borough with high levels of deprivation, yet it also has one of the highest numbers of betting shops in any borough, with 81 in operation, and 12 on one street alone. Newham Council estimates that £20 million of residents’ money was lost to fixed odds betting terminals in just one year. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) have called for a reduction of the maximum stake to £2, and I welcome the Government’s consultation on that issue, which rightly suggests that a £2 limit will help to stop problem gambling. Such a limit would be a great, if belated, Christmas present to the children of Newham.

In conclusion, I thank the staff of the House for their unfailing kindness, professionalism, and service to us all. I know I will not be the only person in the Chamber today who is thinking of our Deputy Speaker and sending him our love and prayers. I am also thinking of the family of Jo Cox, Brendan and the children, and about the family of our own PC Keith Palmer, as they face their first Christmas without him. We all know that that will be massively hard.

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members, the happiest of Christmases, and the very best of new years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Following what the hon. Lady has just said, the Chairman of Ways and Means is very grateful for all the messages that he has received. Hundreds of Members have sent him very kind messages, and he has found that a great support at this sad and tragic time. I will pass on to him, once again, the good wishes of the whole House.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Temporary Chair (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Equality impact analyses of provisions of this Act (No. 2)—

‘(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,

(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(3) A review under this section must give a separate analysis in relation to the following matters—

(a) income tax (in sections 1 and 3 to 6),

(b) employment (in sections 7 to 10),

(c) disguised remuneration (in sections 11 and 12 and Schedules 1 and 2),

(d) pension schemes (in section 13 and Schedule 3),

(e) investments (in sections 14 to 17 and Schedules 4 to 5),

(f) corporation tax and other aspects of business taxation (in sections 2, 19 to 32, 36 and 37 and Schedules 7 and 8),

(g) the bank levy (in section 33 and Schedule 9),

(h) settlements (in section 35 and Schedule 10),

(i) stamp duty land tax (in sections 40 and 41 and Schedule 11),

(j) air passenger duty (in section 43),

(k) vehicle excise duty (in section 44), and

(l) tobacco products duty (in section 45).

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.

(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.” .

This new clause requires the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out a review of the effects of the provisions of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.

[Dawn Butler]

New clause 6 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and those of other Members on both sides of the House. The aim of both new clauses is basically to help the Government. We want them to set an example to every Department and public sector organisation by fulfilling their own obligation under the public sector equality duty and publishing a meaningful equality impact assessment. The equality duty covers nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The Prime Minister says that she understands the problems faced by members of protected groups and that her Government are committed to tackling inequality in the ways set out in the equality duty, but one thing confuses me. If she understands all that, why does she allow her policies to undermine and hurt women and other groups with protected characteristics? Such “words over deeds” undermine people’s trust in politics and politicians.

How can I be sure that the Prime Minister knows these problems so well? There have been two stand-out moments. The first was in 2010, when the Prime Minister said:

“there are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending.”

The second was when she said, on the steps of No. 10, that she wanted to tackle the “burning injustices” in our society. But all that she has done is make things worse. She has added fuel to the fire, and those injustices now burn brighter than ever. The Chancellor said that this Budget would be full of new opportunities—for whom? He failed to address the position of women born in the 1950s, violence against women and girls, the crisis in social care, falling wages, and a social security system that is leaving millions of children in poverty.

I am sure that the Minister will disagree with some of what I am saying, but let me challenge him. This is his opportunity—his moment—to carry out a comprehensive equality impact assessment, publish it, and prove me wrong.

RBS Rural Branch Closures

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend refers to the true figures. The banking market is changing. As he will know, the use of cash has fallen by a fifth in the past decade. The number of branch visits has fallen by a third since 2011. More than a third of UK adults regularly use banking apps. Three fifths of customers are interacting with their current accounts via mobile apps, and more than 600,000 customers over 80 are registered with internet banking. The House must address the reality that the way people bank is changing, and that trend will accelerate as Open Banking comes on stream in January and FinTech progresses. I know from my recent visit to Edinburgh that a number of additional FinTech jobs will be created. The issue is not whether it is possible to prevent changes in the banking market, but how the impact on RBS customers can be mitigated.

As for the representations made by Members, RBS has given six months’ notice—more than the three months required by the access to banking standard—to hold discussions, in which I urge Members in all parts of the House to engage, about how facilities such as mobile banking can be used to mitigate some of the impacts. One of the key sources of mitigation is the post office network, in which the Government have invested significantly: 7,000 more branches have been modernised in the past three years alone. There are more post office branches than there are branches in the entire network of all the banks combined, and 99% of retail customers and 95% of commercial customers now have access to banking services at post offices. One form of mitigation will be for customers to vote with their feet—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members must stop shouting. The Minister is just finishing his speech.