Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

If I keep taking interventions, I fear that my comments will become less fresh and novel to listeners because my hon. Friends, with their expertise on this matter, are anticipating many of my points. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for what he said.

Sadly, following the withdrawal of banking services by Barclays, my constituent, Mr Anwar Ali, had to run down his business severely, and I understand that if he is unable to find a solution to this banking problem, the business may have to close. It is one thing for large banks to refuse to lend to small businesses—we all know about that—but it is another to deny to legitimate, law-abiding small businesses the basic service of a bank account. The banks casually say that they are making a commercial decision, but to small businesses it is a commercial death sentence. Let me remind hon. Members of the importance of such remittances, especially to developing countries.

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report in 2012, in 48 of the least developed countries, remittance receipts climbed from £3.5 billion in 1990 to more than £27 billion in 2011—that figure might be much higher. In Somalia alone, the authorities said in 2012 that around one third of the country’s GDP—$2 billion—came through small money transfer agencies, and that 40% of people in Somalia depended on remittance flows.

A major multinational bank, which in recent years was heavily fined for wrongdoing, is operating in a market dominated by a small number of players of its kind and has withdrawn, mainly from small businesses, a service vital to their existence and crucial to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is difficult to get to the bottom of exactly why that has happened, because it has not made its reasons clear. Are they commercial reasons, as it blithely says, or are they fears about terrorism and money laundering? There is a lack of clarity about the reasons.

Anthony Jenkins, the chief executive officer of Barclays, said that it was stopping offering bank services to such business because they

“don't have the proper checks in place to spot criminal activity and could unwittingly be facilitating money laundering and finance terrorism”.

In a letter to Dahabshiil, which is one of the larger payment firms and is located, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Barclays said that the decision was

“not a negative reflection of your anti-money laundering standards, nor a belief that your business has unwittingly been a conduit for financial crime. It is, however, a commercial decision that we have taken due to the risks of the sector”.

Perhaps the Minister can explain—I know he talks to these big banks—what he thinks is behind the fact that every single major UK bank refuses to provide banking services to the sector, effectively financially excluding the firms, without considering each of them on its merits. Does he believe that that is purely commercial coincidence, or is it—[Interruption.] I wonder whether those in the civil service Box would stop talking while I am addressing the Chamber.

Does the Minister believe that that situation is a commercial coincidence, or is it another aspect of the overall lack of competition in the banking sector that the Government are failing to address? What can he tell us about the role of the National Crime Agency in this matter? In effect, the uncompetitive major banks have erected a complete barrier to the financial sector for some of its smallest members. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?

Dahabshiil was able to win an injunction against Barclays in the courts in October, so its account remains open for the time being, at least. Unfortunately, however, many other firms, including the one in my constituency, have not benefited from the development, because their accounts have already been closed by Barclays. Does the Minister believe that Barclays should offer to reopen the accounts that it closed before the court’s decision so that the account holders are able to carry on their business until the case is finally settled? Does he agree that that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do? It would allow businesses such as the one in my constituency to get on with the business that they were doing perfectly legitimately and legally beforehand so that money transfers could take place. Will he call on Barclays to reopen those accounts until the court decision is made? I understand that so far Barclays has refused to reopen those accounts, so I hope that the Minister will condemn that.

I pointed out in the 2013 debate that there seems to be a different set of rules for large banks and financial institutions, such as Barclays and Western Union, which stand to benefit from the situation. It has been proved that Western Union helped to facilitate money laundering in Mexico—it paid a fine to the Arizona state authorities in relation to that—yet it stands to inherit a lot of the business of small firms against which nothing has been proved. In recent years, almost all the large banks and institutions have been found guilty, in one way or another, of financial misdemeanours, and they have sometimes been fined—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could ask you, Mr Owen, to appeal that those in the civil service Box do not interrupt the debate.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a very interesting contribution. Everybody is very quiet, so any noise that is heard is magnified. I ask that everyone in the room is courteous to the Member who is speaking.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is unfortunate that sound carries, Mr Owen, but it is distracting, so I am grateful for your assistance.

Those large banks and institutions not only have been fined, but have been bailed out by ordinary taxpayers to the tune of billions of pounds to stop them failing as a result of their greed. Their reward for that malfeasance has been a handout from Governments, yet these small businesses, against which much has been insinuated but nothing actually proved, have been squashed by the big banks’ refusal to allow them the facilities that they need to survive, effectively denying them the air that they need to breathe as businesses. That is an intolerable abuse, so the Government should be acting with the utmost urgency to fix it.

So far the Government have taken some steps, especially in relation to Somalia. In September they announced an action group on cross-border remittances, before announcing its terms of reference in December. However, four months after the action group was set up, why—to my knowledge, unless the Minister is going to make an announcement today—has no chair of the group been appointed and why have no meetings taken place? I understand that, as a direct result of today’s debate, a date has finally been set for the group’s first meeting, but the record so far smacks more of inaction than action. Will he tell us today who is to chair the group, and will he confirm when it will meet? We all recognise the danger of terrorism, but why has there not been more focus on helping such remittance businesses to avoid risks, rather than shutting them down when there is no evidence of wrongdoing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that I will be calling the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.40 am.