Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Gentleman mentions that over 1 million people subscribed to the Equitable Life pension funds. Over 900 of them are in my constituency, many of whom, as he says, are people who are just about managing. They have done the right thing, but they are now, at the very best, just about managing. This is about maladministration under previous Governments, so is it not incumbent on this Government at least to open the door a little more to an improved offer that will possibly improve over time to give such savers a fair deal?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because one of the great things we do in this House is to work on moral issues such as Equitable together, across party lines. I am proud to work with the hon. Member for Harrow East—I hope he will allow me to call him an hon. Friend—because he has done an awful lot, and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done. I have done my best to work collectively and collaboratively as the co-chair of the all-party group, because we need to do this together. This is a moral issue, as I shall come on to elaborate.

In July 2008, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable Life, “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, which said:

“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced… Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”

Well, there has certainly been no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, suffered huge losses in the life savings they had accrued over years of hard work.

At the core of the problem is the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations it had made for itself, because it had made no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.

Following the ruling of the House of Lords in July 2000, the society effectively stopped taking new business in December of that year, which spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders found that they faced severe cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of income on which many small investors were depending. After all, as I have said, the average investment among the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which even at its height, according to the Equitable Members Action Group, would have yielded no more than £300 per month.

In its December 2008 report, one of the many recommendations of the Public Administration Committee stated:

“We strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration. Where regulators have been shown to fail so thoroughly, compensation should be a duty, not a matter of choice.”

Reacting to the Government’s lack of response to the ombudsman’s report, the then Conservative Opposition expressed their determination to introduce an Equitable Life (Payments) Bill early in the next Parliament, should they form a Government after the general election of 2010. The legislation planned in the coalition agreement did, indeed, include such a Bill and it was introduced in June 2010, shortly after the new Government took office.

On 10 November 2010, I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, that would have included the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants—WPAs—who had been specifically excluded from the proposed compensation scheme contained in the Bill. The Bill offered 100% compensation to all with-profits annuitants who had taken out their annuities after 1 September 1992 and, as we have heard, 22% compensation to every other policyholder. Many Members from all parts of the House felt that that was inherently unfair, as the date of 1 September 1992 was somewhat arbitrary. That relatively small group of with-profits annuitants were the eldest and by far the most vulnerable policyholders. Many of them would not even live to enjoy the compensation, were it to be paid. Indeed, that has been borne out in reality.

My amendment to the Bill simply read:

“Payments authorised by the Treasury under this section to with-profits annuitants shall be made without regard to the date on which such policies were taken out.”

The Public Bill Office helped me to draft that amendment. The debate on the amendment took just over two hours, but the Division was lost by 76 votes in favour to 301 against. The debate did, however, strongly set out the case for including the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants.

The Bill received Royal Assent in early 2011 and the compensation scheme was set in motion. At first it was slow, but it began to pick up over the subsequent years. By the end of January 2015, more than £1 billion had been paid out to 896,367 policyholders, although more than 142,000 policyholders were still to be found and could not be traced. The scheme, as we know, has now closed. We also know that 37,764 with-profits annuitants, or their estates, were issued payments by the scheme. Those initial and subsequent payments totalled £271.4 million.

In conclusion, I have to give credit to the coalition Government for introducing a compensation scheme from which the majority of Equitable policyholders received 22p in the pound. I am sure we would all agree that that is a lot better than nothing. However, when we examine the compensation that was paid to Icesave investors following the collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008, from which every investor received up to £50,000 of their losses in full, the Equitable scheme looks rather less than generous. Given that the average policy involved a total sum invested of £45,000, as I have said, it seems rather unfair to Equitable policyholders that they did not receive more. That is why EMAG continues to campaign for full compensation for all Equitable policyholders in a reasonable way—in line with the growth of the economy, not all at once—and why so many Members from all parts of the House continue to support that view.

Equitable policyholders have been very patient. They understand that the recession, at the time, meant austerity and a huge shortage of money for many parts of Government and the state. What they cannot understand is that, as the economy grows, they are denied any further payments against their very real losses. I have heard, as many right hon. and hon. Members will have heard, heartbreaking stories from individuals and constituents, some of whom have lost everything, including their homes, all because of Equitable’s failure and the company’s “catastrophic” regulation.

I have said in all my previous speeches in the House on Equitable Life that this is fundamentally a moral issue. When the Government are supposed to protect the life savings of individuals who have been encouraged to provide for themselves, as was the case with Equitable, they have a duty to ensure that the losses incurred are adequately compensated. That obligation should I believe, come above pet projects such as, perhaps, HS2 and even Trident renewal; otherwise, the whole fabric of trust in the state is damaged, which I believe is exactly what has happened in this case. Finally, I urge all Members of this House to continue to uphold the cause of Equitable policyholders and to try to restore their faith in the ability of Members of this House, as the elected representatives of the people, properly to compensate the victims of one of the greatest financial scandals of our age. After all, I believe we have a moral duty and we should not be afraid to carry it out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I generally find it best not to comment on straws in the wind, but I recognise the pressure that many authorities are under from underlying demographic trends. As we have said before, we are alert to that concern and will seek to address it in a sensible and measured way.

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

For people moving into a residential care home the means test takes into account the value of their home, whereas it does not do so if they are applying for care in their own home. Does the Chancellor agree that there should be one simple system of means-testing, for whatever state funding people are applying?

[Mr Hammond]

The system that my hon. Friend refers to has been around for many years and predates the deferred purchase agreements which all local authorities now offer to people contributing to their care. We do not just need to look at individual, specific aspects of this challenge; we need to look broadly at the question of how to make social care funding sustainable for the future, in the face of a rapidly ageing population.

Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 3rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

No, councils can make a reasonable surplus from their car parking and contribute it to their bottom line. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) is not present, as I think he would confirm that the town council in Stratford-on-Avon owns the car parks, rather than the district council, and, given the popularity of Stratford as a visitor destination, almost funds its operations—legitimately—through its car park ownership.

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

Increasing parking charges may be legitimate, but it might have a very damaging effect on local businesses. Is not the Bill’s purpose under clause 2(2) to give local authorities opportunities to put in place different conditions? If they want to raise charges, they might have to go through a consultation, but if they want to lower them, it makes it easier for them to do so, whereas my hon. Friend’s amendment allows them to do virtually anything without consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

Consultation is always important. The two issues are interlinked. Many hospitals are situated in and around town centres, and that can cause all sorts of pressures. The measures in the Bill would have a beneficial effect if the local authorities used them positively. If authorities decide to lower charges, the number of people using local authority car parks may increase, which would then take pressure off other car parks.

Many residents live around town centres. If parking charges are not proportionate, people quite often park in the streets around a town centre and avoid using the car parks because it is quite easy to walk into the centre of town. That exacerbates problems for many people living in such areas. By definition, a town centre is a historic place so properties around it usually date from quite a while back—the end of the 19th century or the beginning of the 20th century—when nobody had a car. Those streets were not built for cars, so there is a lot of competition for parking among the residents alone. The last thing they want are councils that hike up parking charges without consultation, which would put more pressure on their streets and the parking arrangements in them. It is an important part of the Bill that we put in place a situation whereby councils consult.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the Minister confirm that the regulations will also cover coach parking? Coach parking charges were introduced in one of my market towns, Helmsley. That reduced the number of tourist coaches coming to the town, which is a renowned market town and a tourist destination. We then ran a campaign, and the local authority decided to remove the charges, which has helped tremendously to attract new visitors to the town. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether coach parking charges are also covered.

[Mr Jones]

As I was sitting down, I glanced up and noticed that I have cleared the Public Gallery, which is an achievement in itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Whittaker]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. The strategies that councils have in place in the centre of London, Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds will be entirely different from those in some of my smaller local villages, such as West Vale, Ripponden, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden and Brighouse.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend’s experiences contrast with mine of my local Conservative council, Hambleton—this is not a political point, but it reflects a pro-business culture in that council. One of our market towns, Thirsk, has introduced a scheme whereby the first hour is free in the market square car park. That has increased the turnover of shoppers and parkers, which he mentioned at the beginning of his speech.

[Craig Whittaker]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. For a retailer, it is vital that a local resident can pop down to the town centre to get a pint of milk or a loaf of bread—the essentials that we need for daily living—with absolute ease. An excellent car parking strategy would allow them do that as easily and quickly as possible.

High streets and town centres continue to play a fundamental role in the lives of our communities, and parking is one of the factors most able to shape their success. If local authorities can strike the correct balance, a successful parking strategy can bring in visitors. I mentioned the Brighouse Business Initiative, which runs farmers markets in our area. Every year, it runs a massive 1940s weekend, which brings in about 200,000 additional people. Such initiatives in town centres can bring in the footfall, and car parking plays a vital role in that. It can help to reinvigorate a town centre.

Sadly, if the local council gets it wrong, a town centre can experience an all too different result. When local authorities seek to support the high street by reducing charges, the Bill will facilitate that and give them the flexibility to do so. If they adopt a different approach and seek to raise charges, it will ensure that local people and businesses are properly consulted and that the impact on the town is fully considered before any changes are made. The Bill has the potential to have a lasting and positive impact on our town centres, and I wholeheartedly support the intention behind it. I welcome the fact that both the Government and the Opposition have suggested that they will support it, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth for bringing it before the House.

My final point is a message to the Minister. He might have a great knack of emptying the Public Gallery, but if he looks up he will see that it is now almost full.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Solloway]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I mentioned, Derby has just won the Great British High Street award, partly because of the unique offer in places such as Sadler Gate, in the cathedral quarter, where a group of designers have got together to offer goods, all individually designed, and are taking it in turn to sell those products in their shop. It is very innovative and inspirational and draws people in because it is not something found in the shopping centre. That is good way forward.

The private sector has an important part to play.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On the private sector, it is important that local authorities consult the private sector, yet in York, where I first located the head office of our business, the council sold off lots of car parks and then raised the charges in the remaining ones. That destroyed a lot of the independent retailers in the city because, at the same time, it was giving consent for out-of-town shopping centres, of which there are four around York, and then benefited from the huge section 106 contributions flowing back into its coffers. It is anti-business in terms of the important independent retailers in our town and city centres.

[Amanda Solloway]

I agree absolutely. Having been not only in retail for over 30 years, but an avid shopper for over 30 years, I have often visited York, and it is a shame. Shopping centres have their place, but we need to work in partnership to ensure two offers. As I mentioned, these two things are very different—they are almost two defined destinations: one a shopping centre, the other independent retailers with a very different offer.

By giving councils such as Derby the freedom to set parking charges more flexibly, we can enable local knowledge and understanding to have an impact to meet local demand. It is also important that the local authority consults on increasing the parking charges. There needs to be an opportunity to consider whether the increase is correct, and local people and businesses need to be consulted on whether it is appropriate. I acknowledge that the council could still then raise the charges if it chose to, but it is important that people have the opportunity to have that discussion. It means that there would not be any surprises. Businesses and consumers would at least know that the charges were going up and could take note.

I fully support this incredibly sensible Bill. I cannot emphasise enough the need to support these retailers and independent retailers and to encourage entrepreneurship, and parking is such a simple, effective way of encouraging people into our city centres to see the offer available. The Bill is long overdue. In fact, I am surprised it has not been brought forward before because it makes so much sense. These changes will have a positive impact on villages, towns and cities up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on introducing this important Bill. For as long as I represent the constituents of Thirsk and Malton, I will be a champion of small independent businesses. Everything we do in terms of regulation, taxation and infrastructure should consider the needs of small businesses, and in particular try to create the level playing field with large business that we absolutely need to encourage the success of the local small independent retailer and business. Small independent businesses account for about 60% of our private sector-employed workforce and about 50% of our private sector turnover, so they are hugely important.

I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Our estate agent business has about 190 small, independent outlets around the UK in various high streets and market towns. We do not particularly rely any more on footfall, so that is not a big issue for us in terms of car parking and people coming to town or city centres, but it is a big issue for the general health of our towns, villages and cities in helping to ensure that we have a vibrant and healthy sector in our high streets and town centres.

We started our business in 1992, and it grew and we became the market leader in our town of York, which is where our first business started. We thought, “This is going quite well. We’re doing okay here. Our business is starting to prosper.” Three or four years later, however, another very good independent started up in York city centre, and started to take market share off us. We had to look very carefully at the business we were operating and what we were doing, and we started to work harder again. It made us focus on what had made us successful in the first place.

That is a small illustration of the importance of small independent businesses. It is not just about the fact that they are at the heart of communities and about the fact that they provide better service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said; it is also about their dynamics and the commercial realities of business. Small businesses hold big business to account. Wherever we have a big business monopoly—big businesses tend to monopolise the big out-of-town shopping centres—quality is often not as good. An extreme example of that is BT, which is a private sector monopoly, and we all get letters and complaints from constituents about the lack of quality from private sector monopolies, so we need a balance. This nation quite rightly has many good big businesses—my business aspires to be a big business—but we must ensure that the small independent business sector is vibrant. That is why this Bill is so important.

I have experience of some really bad local government car parking policies, and I referred earlier to the policy in York, where we started our first business. York is not in my constituency, but it is just down the road and many of my constituents work in York or have businesses there—our head office is still in York. The city council had a policy of selling off important city-centre car parks, which created revenue for the council and generated section 106 contributions from the developers of those car parks, but that led to more demand for and pressure on the remaining car parks and the charges were increased. It costs £2 an hour to park in the centre of York—a ridiculous figure that deters people from going into the centre. At the same time, the council granted planning consent for out-of-town shopping centres with free parking, and there are four such centres around York—a town of 200,000 residents. Local businesses were not consulted about that. In the conversations that did happen, there was panic from some independent retailers in the centre of York, but the council pushed ahead anyway, much to the detriment of those city-centre retailers.

There are some more positive examples in my constituency. Hambleton District Council has an innovative policy in some of its towns, such as Thirsk, where the council allows people to park for an hour in the market square. People get a ticket from the machine and stick it in the window, but they do not have to pay anything for an hour’s free parking, or they can pay 60p and park for two hours. That has created shopper turnover in the town centre, which is exactly what businesses want. They want people to come in and shop in that short shopping cycle. It is easy for people to go for lunch or just shop for a short period without having to go home and get their money to put in the machine—unless they want to pay to park for longer.

[Jo Churchill]

The situation is similar in my constituency, which is also near to a larger town—Cambridge in my case. The circumstances in the larger towns are different from those in small, rural environments around small market towns. We want to generate throughput so that traders can survive and so local people, who may be unable to shop without getting in their car, have the same choice as those who live near a town.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I could not agree more. We are looking for a symbiotic relationship between the local authority and businesses. There already is a close relationship. The local authority benefits from the success of businesses—retail or otherwise—in its town, but that conversation is sometimes not as comprehensive as it needs to be. The relationship sometimes lacks understanding. The provisions of this Bill about consultation when there is a change to car parking charges and the ability to lower car parking charges without going through a detailed process are why it is so important that we take the Bill through.

My town of Malton is another good example. Unusually, most of the shops, houses and car parks in the centre are owned by a family estate, the Fitzwilliam estate. It is in the estate’s interest for the centre to be a vibrant commercial environment, so, as well as investing heavily in the town and in improving the shops, it gave two hours of free parking in the town centre car parks. That has developed the fantastically vibrant commercial activity we see in Malton.

Malton has been tremendously successful and very clever. A guy called Tom Naylor-Leyland set out to develop a brand around Malton, which he calls Yorkshire’s food capital. The Malton food festival is a fantastic weekend, and hon. Members must consider coming—it is a wonderful weekend to attend. It is vibrant, with music and a beer festival. There is some of Yorkshire’s finest food, and Yorkshire is the finest place for food, as Members can tell. The food festival has been a wonderful success story, and the town has regenerated on the back of it. It has to be seen to be believed. There is a symbiotic relationship between the car park owners, the town centre owners and the businesses, with a deep understanding between the three.

A lot of coach parties come to see the wonders of Helmsley, a fantastic market town. Richard III, the last king of the house of York, had a connection with Helmsley castle, as well as with Richmond castle. As the Minister said earlier, Helmsley was successful in the British high street awards, winning best market town on the back of the fantastic efforts of the town’s traders and local authority. Coach parking charges were introduced in one of its car parks, which deterred coaches carrying 50 tourists from coming to the town. Local people went to the council and campaigned on that issue, and they got the parking charges removed, which brought the coach parties back to the town. That is a good example of how businesses and local authorities, working together, can have a positive effect and foster a deep understanding of some of the challenges of running small independent businesses.

Those are positive examples, but we have heard others. According to the Royal Automobile Club, £756 million was spent on charges and penalties for parking in car parks across the UK in 2016, which is up 9% on 2015 and up 34% on 2010. That can be a tax on shoppers, and it can also be a tax on businesses. Businesses are paying rates and want service from their council yet, as we have heard, they are seen as sitting ducks or golden geese, or as both at the same time. We should make sure that we look after those golden geese and not treat them as sitting ducks because, ultimately, shoppers and businesses will vote with their feet.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Does my hon. Friend think that local authorities that take the wrong approach are likely to cook their goose?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a very good point. It has been a fantastic debate. We have talked about some of the foul consequences of not having good parking policies in local towns. We did mention the Dog and Duck earlier—our local pub is called the Durham Ox. Members may ask, “Durham? In Yorkshire? Why is that?” It is because it has a connection with the Neville family, which is also linked to Richard III. It was a staging post on the way from Durham cathedral to York Minster.

In conclusion, what we need is a level playing field. We must always look after the interests of small business. We should not, in this House, worship at the altar of big business. We should absolutely put small business and independent retailers at the heart of everything we do. I absolutely support the provisions in this Bill, because that is exactly what it does.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Churchill]

It is my pleasure also to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on bringing forward what is—unusually in this place—a simple Bill with a simple aim that affects a great number of people.

I welcome the fact that it is easier for local councils to sort out their car parking, but I want to speak a little bit about enabling them to have a sense of place. That is a really important factor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) alluded, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), who said that we should not be looking for a one-size-fits-all solution. A sense of place is about local authorities understanding their locality, including businesses, residents and the people who visit the town. Our towns are changing, which is why local authorities need flexibility.

In the town of Bury St Edmunds, residents live near businesses and tourist attractions, and a vast number of tourists visit. As I mentioned earlier, we have getting towards 2 million short-stay parking slots each year in a town of some 42,000. That shows the popularity of the town, but it also shows that we need to have local flexibility and accountability. A very different situation exists down the A14 in Stowmarket, which is also in my constituency. Stowmarket has a less vibrant town centre, so the local authority will need to apply different measures to accommodate its businesses and stimulate a vibrant economy that is right for the town. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said, the provision is about building communities. It is about people having the time to go into town centres and actually enjoy where they live.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the different types of town in her constituency. Is not the point of the Bill to require local authorities to work alongside businesses in order to develop the right strategies—for parking or other things—so that those businesses can make the best of their opportunities, no matter which conurbation they are in?

[Jo Churchill]

Absolutely—I could not agree more.

Bury St Edmunds has a 6% retail occupancy rate, which, as my hon. Friend will know, is very low—in fact, it is 50% of the national average. Bury St Edmunds won the award for the best Christmas fair anywhere in the country this year. It has a plethora of things we can enjoy. It has its own cathedral. Tonight, I hope to attend a performance of “Northanger Abbey” at the Theatre Royal, which is one of the only regency theatres in the country. All of that is fantastic, but there are also great things in Stowmarket and Needham Market. However, these places are different, and we need to understand how the Bill can address that.

There is one thing I would like to ask the Minister, and perhaps he can write to me if today is not the time to tease it out. In my area, I have a county council, a borough council, a district council and three town councils. Very often, it is only the fact that those councils work well together that facilitates solutions, despite the complexity involved in different authorities owning different car parks. For example, when Stowmarket Town Council wished to have a cheaper parking rate of £1 for two hours, that was facilitated through collaboration with the district council. Sometimes in these multiple tiers, we have a complexity that even a simple instrument such as this Bill may not address. There might be a little more work to do to deal with areas where things are not as simple as in a unitary authority or a metropolitan authority so that those areas can have conversations that facilitate changes to their local environment—to their car parking—more quickly than is possible at the moment.

That is particularly pertinent in places such as Bury, where we have the contra-problem to a lot of towns: we often do not have enough car parking spaces. It would be really good if these places could drive issues such as the funding of multi-storey car parks, which would allow us to have more parking so that our town centres are not sclerotic. When our town centres are blocked—hopefully, that is what the Bill will address—it is my residents who suffer. When people park somewhere in the town without thinking, residents cannot access their houses. Permits are good, but they stop people parking for business, and that is what I mean about this issue being about the whole environment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

The right hon. Lady and I have recently spoken about this issue, and as she knows, there has been some work done to look at the broader issue. It is complicated, but I undertake to look at it again and respond to her. Of course, some of the broader aspects of the gig economy will be covered during the Taylor review.

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

According to the Library, infrastructure spending per head is 2.5 times greater in London and the south-east than in the regions. Does the Chancellor agree that now is the time for a fairer distribution of investment spending across the UK?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The Government are committed to investment in all the regions of the UK. We have delivered more than 500 infrastructure schemes in the north since 2010, and more than £13 billion of spending is planned on transport in the north during this Parliament. In Yorkshire, this includes new trains on the east coast main line, the trans-Pennine railway upgrade and bringing the A1(M) up to motorway standard for its full length. I would just say to my hon. Friend that figures for London and the south-east are distorted by the effect of the strategic Crossrail project, with a cost of £14.8 billion.

Shale Wealth Fund

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

Absolutely. The great thing about energy efficiency is that it has a multiplier effect. It not only makes our homes warmer and reduces bills, but creates jobs and encourages innovation, too. Although it will be a national fund, the delivery should be at a local level, and the leadership should be held regionally within our communities across the UK.

One bad scheme such as the green deal does not mean that we should give up. With the green deal gone, and the energy company obligation soon to exist solely to tackle fuel poverty, we need to be asking serious questions about how to move forward on energy efficiency. We know, because the Competition and Markets Authority told us, that 70% of bill payers are paying over the odds for their energy and even if the latest Ofgem measures are introduced, they will reduce bills for only a few. It is very likely that, even by 2020, we will still be talking about energy bills that are as high, if not higher, than they were in 2010. I am sure the Minister would agree that the cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use. A shale wealth fund could provide an opportunity to enhance a large-scale retrofit of the UK’s housing stock, protecting households from future energy price rises. The fund should not be the only programme for energy efficiency, but it would provide a new means beyond passporting the cost to the general bill payer.

For a moment, let us consider the future if we do not make energy efficiency a priority. Quite rightly, the UK has ambitious and legally binding emissions targets, and we shall have to meet those targets, with 80% of the UK built environment still existing in 2050. The UK building stock is a long way from the low-energy housing stock that the UK will need, and the challenge is still huge. The Government’s own figures for 2015 show that, overall, their largest energy efficiency scheme, ECO, installed one or more measures in around 5% of homes. Some 320,000 homes had cavity wall insulation installed, 230,000 had new loft insulation, and 50,000 had solid wall insulation fitted. Yet of the 620,000 green deal assessments, 89% of those homes were rated as D, E, F or G. There is a long, long way to go.

There is a huge job that needs to be done, and for whatever reason—poorly directed funding or lack of profitability—the hard-to-treat properties have been substantially ignored. Many of the easiest measures have been undertaken first. Now Britain needs to finish the job. An energy efficiency dedicated shale wealth fund could be a hugely positive step, and I am not alone in suggesting this. Neil Marshall, chief executive of the National Insulation Association, commented:

“There are still some 5 million cavity walls, 7 million solid walls and 7 million lofts that need insulating and therefore we welcome this proposal. Insulating these homes will combat fuel poverty and climate change as well as reducing energy bills and creating jobs.”

The association rightly identifies the fact that many homes have yet to be adequately insulated, including 95% of homes with solid walls.

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

Most of my constituency is covered by exploration licences for shale, so I have done a lot of research, visited Pennsylvania and set up an all-party parliamentary group on the subject. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the greatest impact of shale gas exploration is above the ground and consists of traffic movements, noise and light pollution? As a consequence, does she agree that some of the financial benefits should go directly to some of the householders who bear the brunt of those difficulties?

[Caroline Flint]

I entirely agree. Some of those problems come down to planning. As in any other planning arrangements, there should be mitigation by any developer of any undue impacts caused in the community. It is important to emphasise that not every place that is the subject of an application will get through, because of the drawbacks that the hon. Gentleman outlines. There are many different ways that compensation could be found from shale gas development, whether through the planning process, the £100,000 per well, 1% of revenues to local communities, or the shale wealth fund, which I believe has a particular role to play in addressing a massive problem in this country—the lack of energy efficiency.

IGas has decided to focus its community fund awards this year on local renewable energy generation and long-term conservation. In its submission, INEOS argued:

“The Government may wish to consider allocating a portion of funding towards energy efficiency initiatives or developing renewable technologies. This will also help to debunk the myth that it is an either/or between gas and renewables.”

Let us remember that INEOS is one of the firms that has had to import shale gas from the USA to meet its current needs.

Lancashire County Council argues in its submission that as part of a devolution deal the shale wealth fund in Lancashire

“could be focussed on green and renewable technologies and also ensuring that ordinary families in the county can help reduce their energy costs through energy efficiency measures in the home.”

Concentrix

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I have said, both in reply to the urgent question on 14 September and in my opening remarks today, that front-line Concentrix staff have been working hard to resolve these issues. The problems of a contract like this, and of getting through on the phone, are never usually the fault of the person you finally get through to. It is right to say that people have been working hard. I suspect the hon. Gentleman represents many of the people who work there.

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

I also welcome the statement that we are terminating the contract with Concentrix. That is absolutely the right thing to do. I have a number of constituents who have suffered these problems. Mr and Mrs Young from Malton provided evidence that they were married. Despite that, Mrs Young was identified as unmarried and living in Whitby on her own. Members of Parliament have the emergency hotline—I have used it—and people can get emergency hardship payments. Does the Minister welcome that and should we make it more publicly known that those measures are available for people in hardship?

[Jane Ellison]

That is exactly right, and today’s debate is timely as it allows us to focus on that. I am now going to give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has done so much work on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The freedom for Northern Ireland to set its corporation tax rate is an important measure in itself. We look forward to further progress on that. Of course, there will be an autumn statement next month in which the Government will set out their economic policy. I have mentioned corporation tax and R and D tax credits, which we have made more generous. Those measures will have helped manufacturing businesses in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

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

I welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to the northern powerhouse given the impact that that can have on manufacturing, in particular in my constituency, and the allocated funds for the A64 at Hopgrove. Does the Minister agree that such investments must seek maximum economic benefit? The current proposal from Highways England will simply kick an existing pinch point down the road if we do not see the dualling of that carriageway on the A64.

[Mr Speaker]

That had an extremely tangential relationship with the matter of manufacturing industry, therefore meriting an extremely pithy response.

UK Economy

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

That dialogue is taking place and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will continue to take place. We were on different sides of the argument when it came to the referendum, but he shares my view that Britain needs to be open to the world and trading with the world. That means having sufficient airport capacity to fly to the world and to allow the world to fly to us. I am sure that that view is universally accepted across the House, but we will find out.

The key challenge, to which I think we can rise, is working out through collective discussion and decision making the new relationship that we should seek with the European Union. Until we have agreed on an approach, we should not trigger article 50 and begin the process of exiting the European Union. As the Prime Minister said, “triggering article 50” is rightly a decision for the new Prime Minister and the new Government, and it is a decision that we will take at the right time, when we are ready and not before.

The economic uncertainty will have an impact on our public finances that is likely to be both cyclical and structural. The Office for Budget Responsibility will make its assessment of the economy this autumn—let me tell the shadow Chancellor that, to get the best possible forecast from the OBR, we have to wait a little for the dust to settle—and it will be for the new Government under a new Prime Minister to take the decisions about the adjustments that will be required to meet the new fiscal realities, but we should never forget that fiscal stability is the absolute bedrock of economic security. We must be realistic, but I want to reassure the House that our economy remains competitive and open for business—we have the lowest corporate taxes in the G20, more people in work than ever before thanks to our welfare reforms, and our science and our universities are world class.

Let me pick up on a point that has been made throughout the debate in the country and in Parliament. We need to go on forging our links with key partners beyond Europe, such as with China and India. I never thought that we had to choose between Europe and forging new links with the rest of the world. Germany exports three times as much as we do to China, so it is clearly possible to do that within the European Union, but outside the European Union those links are more important than ever before.

I will travel to China next month as part of the G20 Finance Ministers meeting there. To pick up on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made in an intervention, I have spoken to the US Treasury Secretary and the Speaker of Congress in the past couple of days about strengthening our ties with our great ally, America.

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

Does the Chancellor agree that it is about not just new trade deals but the supply chains that he mentioned earlier and building those customer relationships over many decades, as we have with the European Union? We simply cannot take our trade from Europe one day and move it to the US or China the next.

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend is completely right, but we should not have to choose between the two. It is perfectly possible to do a lot more business with India, America and China while also doing a lot of business with Europe. That would be a key part of Britain’s economic strength in the future. As I have said, in respecting the decision of the British people to leave the EU, we should now be seeking the closest possible terms of trade with the EU not just in goods but in services, including financial services.

The third and final part of the plan that we need to pursue was touched on by the shadow Chancellor—we think of it as a social issue, but it has economic ramifications as well—and that is that we must unite across the political spectrum and offer a very loud and clear message to this country that we have no tolerance of intolerance, hatred and bigotry. We need to send a message of reassurance to all the communities in our very successful, multi-faith, multi-race democracy that we will not tolerate those who want to divide us.

The reports of the graffiti on the Polish community centre in Hammersmith, of the people who have lived in this country for decades being told, “We voted you out”; and of the figures that have shown a big increase in the report of hate crimes all point to incidences that are appalling and unacceptable. It is not the British way. We should unite in condemning it. The Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), set out some of the additional steps that we are taking to combat this intolerance, but in this economic debate I say to business leaders that they should also play their part and make it clear that intimidating bullying of any kind in the workplace based on nationality or race should be identified and punished. Britain is an open, tolerant and diverse society where people of all faiths and none and of all nationalities and ways of life are welcome, as they have helped to build this successful country.

Therefore, there are three key things that we need to do now: go on ensuring financial stability; ensure that we resolve the economic uncertainty by working together to determine the model for our new relationship with the EU; and send out a strong message that we will not tolerate intolerance. If we deliver on those three parts of the plan, we will be doing the best we can to make this decision work for Britain and to fulfil the instructions of the British people. I must be straight with people in this country: the weeks and months ahead will not be easy, but, as has always been the case in our history, it is during the moments of greatest challenge that our country must demonstrate its greatest resolve, and it often does.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who made some fine points. I particularly liked the phrase he coined about moving from free movement to fair movement.

There is a time and a place to take a risk. I started my business in 1992. Many in the House will remember that year and, in particular, 16 September 1992. Unemployment was at 3 million; repossessions were running at 72,000—three times the normal average; and, on that single day, interest rates went from 10% to 12% to 15%. As the House will remember, the day after, we pulled out of something called the exchange rate mechanism, and that was the right thing to do. Many economists said it was the wrong thing to do—they said it was a big risk—but things could hardly have got worse, so it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Look at where we are today: we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the developed world and virtually full employment, meaning that all our young people and our older people can get a job. We had a saying in our business: hope is not a strategy. There was so little strategy from the Vote Leave campaign going beyond our exit from the EU, which was why most business organisations—the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the manufacturers’ federations, TheCityUK—said it was the wrong thing to do. Every leading economist—and even some not-very-leading economists—said it was the wrong thing to do. But of course this was seen as some kind of conspiracy.

It was not just business talking like that but the music industry, the science industry, our research organisations, our technology industry and so on. A report by the House of Lords called leaving the EU a huge risk because of the complexity of withdrawal. It will take at least two years from our giving notice under article 50, but it will take many more years to unwind all the connected legislation. A report in The Times last week said it would take 10 Queen’s Speeches to unwind the legislation. That breeds the uncertainty that businesses do not like.

This is also about trade deals, and not just about trading today with Europe but about opening new trade markets around the world. As the Chancellor said, that is a great opportunity, but businesses cannot simply move their supply and customer bases from one location to another overnight—yet that is what they are being asked to do.

[James Cartlidge]

Is not much of our trade with the rest of the world done through large international companies that locate in the UK because we are in the single market?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A good example are the Swiss banks. Despite Switzerland’s being part of the European economic area, it cannot trade directly with the EU, so it has to base subsidiaries within the EU. Happily, firms such as Credit Suisse and UBS put them in London, as do US banks such as Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and the like. That is why the head of TheCityUK said that the move could cost up to 100,000 jobs in the City of London. Yet this was never dealt with or answered by the Vote Leave campaign. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) shakes his head. The risks are huge, yet the issue has not been properly dealt with.

The impact on car manufacturers has not been properly dealt with either. This is not simply about our opening new trade markets around the world; it is about a supply chain that is deeply embedded throughout Europe. A typical drive shaft for a family saloon car is manufactured in six different countries across Europe. What are car manufacturers to do if tariffs are applied between us and the EU? Just last evening, I was talking to a multinational retailer who had 3,000 members of staff but was moving to new premises with 5,000 members of staff. These people move from London to Frankfurt to Paris just as we would move from north Yorkshire to London, but they face the prospect of not being able to do that. How have we made this decision without talking about these issues and answering these questions?

There is an even bigger issue. Looking at the European Union in such a sensitive stage, I view it as a house of cards, and if the UK pulls our card from the bottom, there is a significant risk that the whole house will implode. A domestic economic risk then moves towards becoming an international and global economic risk, along with a political risk and a security risk. This country’s economy and our prospects for national security could be hugely affected.

We should recall that only a few years ago many European member states were totalitarian states behind the iron curtain, yet they are today free and fair democracies with the rule of law and freedom of the press. The European Union has presided over those member states, making sure that they are focused on prosperity and trade, rather than looking backwards or, even worse, eastwards towards Russia.

All these issues are in play, and there are many positive reasons for remaining part of the European Union. It is about the opportunity to live, work and study right across the continent; it is about peace and prosperity; and it is about tackling some of our huge challenges and economic risks—issues such as climate change, air pollution, drug resistance and tax evasion.

Of course, free movement of people and immigration are the biggest issues that need to be dealt with. I quite understand the public concern about those issues, and I believe that this was not a referendum on the European Union, but on immigration. I understand that we need to deal with it and now we have an opportunity to do so. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, we need to deal with it in a proportionate way, and to look at the many different solutions to the problem, working together with our European neighbours.

Above all, we must have free and unfettered access to the single market, because the economic consequences of not having it are impossible—too severe—to contemplate. All the way through the referendum campaign, I wanted to remain and reform, but that option is no longer available. What we must now do is to work together with our European counterparts to make sure that we get reform. We must work collaboratively with our European partners to make sure that we have a fair economic settlement that works for both the European Union and for the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

By halving the tolls, we have taken a significant step to help Welsh businesses and businesses on the other side of the border, while ensuring we have the resources to maintain the bridge without having to draw on the same taxpayers through their tax bill.

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

I have had business and broadband events at Easingwold, in my constituency, and this Friday we have invited several providers, including fibre and satellite providers, as well as providers of point-to-point wireless, which, in our experience, is the best solution for those in the hardest-to-reach areas. Will the Chancellor consider extending the excellent satellite voucher scheme to point-to-point wireless or allowing communities to pool vouchers to facilitate and fund community-based schemes?

[Mr Osborne]

I am happy to take a close look at my hon. Friend’s proposal—I know what a rural constituency he represents. We have piloted support in north Yorkshire for rural businesses and their broadband links, and as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we are considering using the digital economy Bill to make broadband a universal service obligation, because we know what a transformative effect it can have on the rural economy.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett]

I shall make a little progress, if I may, as a lot of people want to speak in the debate.

I was talking about the unfair distribution of cuts. The three most affluent areas in the country have had the lowest amount of cuts to their Government support since 2010, yet lo and behold, the same three affluent councils then received an extra £33.5 million from the Secretary of State’s transitional grant. That £33.5 million was 10% of the entire amount of transitional grant that was given to the whole country, just focused on the three most affluent councils.

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) if she wishes. It seems she does not. I evidently made such a devastating point that she is still reflecting on it.

Let me draw a comparison between the three most affluent councils and the most deprived councils in the country. [Interruption.] This is an important point. I hope Government Members are not scoffing. Liverpool, Knowsley, Hackney and Manchester not only had the most severe cuts to their budgets since 2010, but they did not receive a single penny in transitional grant. There is no rational explanation for such a distribution of Government largesse. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider publishing the criteria by which the civil service distributed that £300 million. We have had no luck so far in finding out how he managed to produce a distribution that favoured the richest councils and penalised the most deprived.

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

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his comments that rural areas are getting a better deal? My local authority, North Yorkshire County Council, was facing a 39% reduction, compared to an average reduction of 20% to metropolitan areas.

[Jon Trickett]

I believe the hon. Gentleman said North Yorkshire. If I remember correctly, North Yorkshire got £10 million in transitional funds. West Yorkshire and south Yorkshire got not a single penny. Not a single council in the whole of west and south Yorkshire got a single penny, yet the cuts that west Yorkshire councils faced were much more acute than those that North Yorkshire had faced.