Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

Q From your point of view and the way you run your businesses, can you explain what efforts you make around animal welfare? We heard this morning about issues of cruelty towards animals and the sense that this ban is overwhelmingly supported by the British public, which I imagine includes those people who attend and watch circuses. I will be grateful for your perspectives on that.

Peter Jolly: From the animal welfare side of it, our animals do the very minimum performing in a day. For the majority of the day they are outside grazing. Myself and Carol—

Carol MacManus: Spoil our animals.

Peter Jolly: They are grazing animals—hoofed animals—so for the majority of the day, apart from maybe one or two hours, they are outside grazing. Their veterinary care is top, because our licence requires us to keep records on a daily basis. Four times a day, for every single animal, we have to record the weather, the environment, what food they have had and what we have done with them, such as if we walk them from the paddock to the big top. There are no welfare problems at all.

Carol MacManus: We did a survey while we were doing the tours of the circus in 2010—I know that is a while back now—that 10,000 people filled in, and 84% was positive. Some of them did not even realise what the survey was and just ticked all the boxes because they weren’t really reading it. You say that an overwhelming majority want to ban animals in circuses, but the majority of those people are against us having animals in any form of entertainment. Slowly but surely you will find that they try to ban everything.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q What animals do you keep?

Peter Jolly: Do you mean animals or what are classified as wild animals?

[Simon Hoare]

The animals that would be covered by the Bill, were it to become an Act.

Peter Jolly: Camels, zebra, reindeer, an Indian cow, a fox, two raccoons and a macaw.

Carol MacManus: And I have one zebra, two camels and two reindeer that I believe are questionable anyway.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Q Because they are not reindeer?

Carol MacManus: Because they are not really wild in this country—only if they are owned by a circus.

[Simon Hoare]

Q There is always this fine divide, and because one can does not necessarily mean that one should. Do you think, in this day and age, with the popular access to wildlife television programmes and conservation and so on, that animals should be used for entertainment in that way? What good is that doing, apart from entertaining?

Peter Jolly: It is not just the entertainment in the ring. We have children coming to the circus who have never seen, smelled or touched a camel. I have a fox that is now 15 years old that I hand-reared from three or four days old. The only foxes that children see are on the side of the road, dead. They do not see these animals. Safari parks and zoos are very good in their own way, but not everybody can afford to go to a zoo or safari park, because they are very expensive.

[Simon Hoare]

Mr Jolly, I quite specifically did not mention zoos or safari parks, because I think you can construct a perfectly—the question I asked was whether, with access to internet and television—

Peter Jolly: It is not the same. You cannot smell an animal on the internet or on the television.

[Simon Hoare]

Having smelled camels, I think I would prefer not to have to smell them.

Carol MacManus: Are you saying we smell?

[Simon Hoare]

Not you, Ms McManus, but camels are not known for their—you do not find them on the Estée Lauder counter, do you?

Carol MacManus: No.

[Simon Hoare]

Q So the question is whether you should use them in that way.

Peter Jolly: Yes.

Carol MacManus: Why not?

[Simon Hoare]

Q Could you give me your justification for that?

Peter Jolly: My service is a family service. It is family orientated, so we deal with a lot of children. They do not get to see these things. Why should we deprive those children of contact with live animals? They are not wild animals; they are live animals. As Carol said, our animals, in our eyes, are exotic, not wild animals.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Q I believe you are basing some of your evidence on the idea that the animals that you have are domesticated; you mention, Ms MacManus, that camels are domesticated in most areas of the world. However, at least one person has written to us saying that elephants have been domesticated for thousands of years. They could be counted as domesticated animals.

Carol MacManus: But we do not have any elephants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is unnatural to their way of life.

Carol MacManus: No, it is not.

Peter Jolly: My camels load themselves when it is time to go to the next place. We do not have to lead them like a horse or anything; they get into the trailer themselves.

[Simon Hoare]

So did Pavlov’s dog.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q So what is the difference between your camel and a horse?

Peter Jolly: We treat it like one. We lead it the same and treat it the same.

Carol MacManus: None of our animals shows any sign of stress at all when they are travelling. In fact, some stress tests have been done on lions, which are wild animals. I am sure that Mr Lacey will tell you about that later, because I do not know the ins and outs of it, but proper stress tests have been performed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Latham]

Q You were talking about being in safari parks, where cars were going past them, but in the confined space of a circus ring there are hundreds of people around them, in very close proximity, tapping, cheering, shouting,

Carol MacManus: I think they quite like it, actually. Our zebra doesn’t like it if he does not perform; if, for any reason, he does not perform, he gets stressed. He knows when the music is on. He stands waiting at his door for the young lad to take him across to the ring to work with me—there is only one handler who handles him. He likes performing. When I had my old zebras, they used to free-range around the site. They would always be in the big top, where the shade was, or wandering round the site.

[Simon Hoare]

Q I think you have given us food for thought. To pick up on what Ms Newton said, it is clear that you care very much about the welfare of your animals, and you are operating under a strong and robust regulatory regime at the moment. I am slightly confused about the point about car noise in a safari park.

Peter Jolly: I was talking about fumes.

[Simon Hoare]

You did speak about noise as well. Unless your audience is made up of children who subscribe to the Trappist way of life, they will make some noise. All I have to do is take my jacket off the hook and my dogs know that we are going for a walk —animals will always respond to those sorts of things.

Ms MacManus, your submission to us is dismissive of ethics, if I can put it that way. I can understand why you make that argument, but I want to ask whether you accept two things. First, do you accept that one rotten apple will spoil the barrel? In your sector, poor behaviour has shone a spotlight on the whole issue, which means that the good, the bad and the ugly get hit in exactly the same way.

Secondly, I do not say this to draw a direct comparison, but I am pretty certain that the family who were fourth generation bull or bear-baiters would have said, “But we’ve always done this; it is our way of life”, because that is what they would have known. Things change when perception and attitudes change. This almost goes back to my first question: do you accept that, just because one can, that does not necessarily mean that one should, and that in the general national consciousness the time of having wild/exotic animals in a circus for entertainment or educational purposes has reached its sell-by date, has passed and is a bit old hat, and that people want to move on because our ranking of animals has changed and is evolving?

Carol MacManus: No.

Peter Jolly: The majority of people still want to see circuses. You are talking about a handful of people who hit the media, Facebook and all that, who are whipping up this hysteria. When we go to a village or a small town, everybody wants to come and see the circus, which contradicts that. We would be out of business if we didn’t have the general public coming to visit us.

[Simon Hoare]

That’s a fair market counter-argument that you put.

Carol MacManus: And we have moved with the times and we do make improvements—everybody makes improvements all the time.

Peter Jolly: Just having the licensing scheme is moving forward. That was a move forward.

Carol MacManus: Anybody here should read that before they make their decision, because the review on our reports speaks volumes.

[Alex Chalk]

Q Two things. First, your basic argument, as I understand it, is that any wild animal—or exotic animal, as you call it—should be able to perform in these circuses.

Peter Jolly: We might not want to use them, but what we are saying is that if they can be kept according to the proper methods and welfare, you should be allowed them. You should not be allowed them if you cannot meet the stringent welfare standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandy Martin]

But—

Martin Lacey: Just one second. First, we are looking at facts. I have noticed that we are now talking about ethics, which is probably a circus’s strongest point. The way that a child’s eyes open when they sees those animals—no book or picture could ever do that for children. Given what you see when they come close to the animals, ethics is one of our strongest points in circuses, and not just because the animals are well taken care of.

The picture painted is that man and beast were never together. That is not true. It is only in the last 30 years that a picture has been painted that it is very bad that people and animals are together.

If we are talking about ethics, it is a very fine line. Ethically, we love our animals. Ethics is built on religion, and if you really go back and you believe in religion—Noah’s ark; that was a myth, or not a myth—you are talking about animals and people together, and saving animals. If we are talking about ethics, how can people save animals if you do not want people to be involved with animals?

They paint the picture that it is Disney in the wild. It is not Disney. I do not know if anybody has visited the wild, but there are some beautiful places—Kenya is very beautiful. I was in Botswana 10 years ago and there were rhinos. There are no more rhinos in Botswana. As long as the World Wildlife Fund keeps taking lots and lots of money and every time an animal becomes extinct, people such as myself and my family and well run circuses—you asked whether I believe in circuses; no, I believe in well run circuses, not all circuses—are the ones who will have the future gene pools for these animals.

Ethics is completely on the circus side, if we are talking about the ethics of animal ownership. Let us go to what you were just talking about—when there were shows with small people and bearded ladies. If we are talking about ethics and slavery, does that mean every person who owns a dog or cat does cannot have an animal anymore? It has gone a little bit too far. That is where you have a fine line of animal rights and animal welfare, and people have to find a fine balance. If you do not have your feet on the floor, this thing will go out of the window and we have become a real big show when it comes to ethics and animal rights. The local cat that kills a mouse will be in front of a jury for murdering a mouse. That is how far it goes. That is where ethics is really on the circus side.

[Simon Hoare]

Q Mrs Brown, I have read your evidence. Can I take you to something that confuses me, at the top of page 3? “They”—by which you mean circus families—

“pay their taxes and obey every animal welfare law. Their ethics of running a business and keeping families together is very high. This is how they treat their animals too. I would like to suggest that government would not ban them if they were a Muslim family.”

What do you mean by that?

Rona Brown: Can you say the last bit again?

[Simon Hoare]

This is in your written evidence:

“I would like to suggest that government would not ban them if they were a Muslim family.”

What do you mean by that?

Rona Brown: I need to find it. I have printed mine up in big letters.

[Simon Hoare]

This is at the bottom of the first paragraph on what is our page 3, which begins:

“The two circuses are family circuses”.

I can hand you my copy if that is easier.

Rona Brown: That is very kind of you. Is it this one,

“Animals have no concept of demeaning”?

[Simon Hoare]

No, no, it is the reference to the Government not doing this

“if they were a Muslim family.”

I think I have highlighted the extract. I was not certain of the point you were seeking to make.

Rona Brown: I am sorry, I cannot—

[Simon Hoare]

You are on the right page.

Rona Brown: Is it this one, which you have highlighted?

[Simon Hoare]

No, no, just above.

Rona Brown: I am sorry, I do know it off by heart. Is it this paragraph,

“The two circuses are family circuses, the Jolly’s are a Christian family, they keep their family together and keep within the law”?

[Simon Hoare]

Yes, it is the last sentence of that paragraph—the segue, of course, is the reference to Christian family at the start.

Rona Brown: “I would like to suggest that government would not ban them if they were a Muslim family”?

[Simon Hoare]

Yes. I wonder what you meant by that.

Rona Brown: Well, I meant by that that it seems to me that you have to be— I am a Christian and I feel that Christians are having a bad time at the moment. All other religions are looked upon as needing to be protected, whereas Christian families are ignored. I feel that this is—

[Simon Hoare]

Q Mrs Brown, I happen to be a practising Roman Catholic. Could I put it to you that I am not aware of anywhere in Catholic doctrine that gives me the right to run a circus? However, that might be a different matter.

Mr Lacey, could I turn to your evidence? Again, I must confess that I did not find it terribly compelling. If I take you to page 4, it states:

“We protect only what we know. Animals in the circus serve as ambassadors for their wild counterparts more personally and emotionally than any documentary on TV, thus the circus indirectly makes a contribution to conservation by showing how wonderful animals are and why humans should preserve them in the wild.”

I was not certain about the link between seeing animals up close in a circus and preserving them in the wild. You talked about natural behaviour and about how you are not seeking to make animals perform or entertain. If you look at page 11, that might be you in costume, in some purple sequinned garb.

Martin Lacey: Can I have a look at that?

[Simon Hoare]

You can, yes, if Sir David allows.

Martin Lacey: That is my brother.

[Simon Hoare]

Q Your brother? I got the family likeness. Could you tell me where in the natural world, not least because they are in different continents, you might find—

Martin Lacey: That just shows to me how much you do not know about animals. Lions and tigers were together 200 years ago; there were Indian lions. There is proof that lions and tigers were together.

[Simon Hoare]

Q But could you tell me now, in contemporary society—in real time, as it were—where you might find two tigers standing on the back of a lion?

Martin Lacey: First of all, this is based on trust. All that training is not done behind closed doors: if you had a live link right now, you could see my lions. They are all in outside areas. A lion on top of a tiger—if you go in the outside cage and you see them in a big outside area, they play. It is only a matter of you being able to do that with a command. They stretch on the back of a lion, and it shows a trust between the person, the animal, and the tiger. It is actually very beautiful. You have probably never seen that; you have seen the photo, of course, but you cannot see the whole movement. It is actually very beautiful to see this trust between them. In fact, that movement is so beautiful that my lion works also with tigers. They jump in the swimming pool—lions do not really like water, and they have a face like they do not really want to be in there. They actually think they are tigers.

[Simon Hoare]

Q Mr Lacey, I think we will have to disagree. You have made the point that beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder. I see nothing beautiful in that photograph whatsoever. Nor do I see anything particularly beautiful, natural, educational or conservational in the photograph at the bottom of page 14, where a man who does not look like you—he may be a second cousin once removed—is sitting on the back of a lion that seems to be jumping from one rather large hamster wheel on to another.

Martin Lacey: You have to understand that we live in a changing world. That is in Russia. Russians have a completely different aspect on ways of training animals, and therefore when you work with people around the world—I was over in Moscow, for example, and I went to talk to them about animal welfare. When I was in Moscow, I saw people sat on the floor in the ice, waiting for bread. I thought to myself, “Why am I going over there talking about these animals when I see the animals are very warm, with nice big coats on them?” I saw their training.

Each country is very different. Because we have become very global, you have a photo like this. For example, my public do not want to see a lion jump through a hoop of fire. The hoop of fire is no problem; every police dog does that, because it is a sign of trust. It is not what I want to see nowadays.

[The Chair]

I must intervene now, because we only have 16 minutes left.

[Simon Hoare]

I have time for a final question.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and to take part in this debate. Times change, and when they do we have to change the rules and regulations to reflect mindsets. To some in this House, it might seem like only yesterday that films such as “The Greatest Show on Earth”, with Dorothy Lamour and Charlton Heston, were great hits because they had the romance and excitement of circus life.

If we fast-forward to just a few weeks ago, as a father I made probably the worst decision I have ever made in my life when I decided to take my three daughters to see the remake of “Dumbo”. My eldest daughter, Imogen, just about managed to survive with some degree of stoicism. My middle daughter, Jessica, cried five times during the film. My youngest daughter, Laura, had to be taken out of the cinema by me, so upset had she become by the film. I have to say I was rather relieved because I, too, was finding the film rather upsetting. The question they asked at the rescue centre afterwards—also known as Pizza Express Dorchester—was, “Why? Why would you have an elephant in a circus? Why would you treat an elephant like that?” I think that just shows the change in our society.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Everyone in the Chamber is completely committed to the welfare of animals, including me, but will my hon. Friend think about what he is saying? If he is saying that an animal does not belong in a circus—I accept that that is what the vast majority of people believe is right—does he think that animals in other contexts should be where they are? Does an animal belong in a zoo? Does a horse belong on a racecourse? Does a greyhound belong in a greyhound stadium? He has to look at the implications and precedent that legislation sets.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think I can help, because what the hon. Gentleman asks would broaden the debate outside the scope of circuses. The Bill is about circus animals. It is not about breeding programmes in zoos or different things. The hon. Gentleman is comparing horses and dogs to a circus, but the Bill is about wild animals in circuses. I would like to keep the debate contained to the subject before us.

[Simon Hoare]

If I may, I will reply briefly and within order to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised. Representing Romford, he would be a very brave man to suggest that greyhound racing should be stopped. He makes a valid point. I can well remember being taken as a young boy to Barry zoo, which Vale of Glamorgan Council eventually closed because it was so fiendishly awful and the treatment of its animals was so bad. Standards have to reflect the very highest standards of animal welfare.

Those days have gone. When circuses were at their most popular and wild animals were in use, circuses could say, “We are doing some sort of education as well.” However, the likes of David Attenborough and co have changed that. We can be educated in our own homes about wild animals in their natural habitats and we can get more information and education in that way. Those people do that important job in a much better way.

I can remember as a boy being taken—my mother is still not entirely sure why—to Gerry Cottle and Billy Smart’s circus when it performed in Cardiff. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) nodding almost with reminiscence at those names. We never left those circuses elevated by joy; we left with a terrible feeling of sadness. There was something alien, wrong and outdated about it, even in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It just goes to show that sometimes this place needs to find ways of moving far more quickly to better reflect changes in mindset.

I was pleased and proud to be a co-sponsor when my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) brought forward a Bill on this issue in February 2016. I am delighted to see him in his place. I remember, as on similar occasions, that it was opposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I have to say that anything opposed by him usually seems a good thing in my book.

I am delighted by this Bill. I am grateful that Ministers are bringing it forward. I know that the numbers we are talking about are low, but I view the Bill as a sender of a message and an articulation of a set of values. It is also an insurance policy. Were there to be a European renaissance of wild animals performing in circuses, through this legislation the message would go out from the House and across our parties that such circuses would not be welcome in the UK.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was very glad to visit a successful business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I know that he is very committed to the development of business in his area. It is important that money spent is raised locally as far as possible. As a Government, we have rebalanced from central Government giving money to local government to more of that money being kept locally, whether through business rates retention or council tax. That is an important principle. However, we did recognise in the Budget that local authorities were under pressure. That is why we put in an extra £650 million, which can particularly be spent on adult social care and children’s social care where there is pressure. Of course, we will look at that balance in the spending review.

At the moment, we have a complicated landscape in the support offered to business. When there is a complicated landscape, it can sometimes be the big businesses that know how to work the system that end up getting the money. We need to move to a system where we have lower taxes and it is clearer and simpler to see where the support is. Of course, we are also investing in the infrastructure that helps business to succeed, whether it is local roads, fibre or rail. Ahead of the spending review, I am making visits around the country to hear from people on the ground to understand what the public’s priorities for public spending are. It can sometimes be easy in Whitehall to listen to the big lobby groups— the big organisations that have an operation here in Westminster—but I want to hear what people in Coventry and other places around the country think about what their priorities are. I have done a few of these sessions so far, and the topics that come up tend to be education, local roads, the NHS—for which we have already put in additional money—and police. We need very much to keep in mind what the public want to see our money spent on rather than just listening to the big organisations.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend mention education. May I press her to consider the fact that in our rural areas the funding per pupil is still not as it should be by comparison with urban schools? We have a huge number of Victorian schools, such as that which I visited earlier in the week in Motcombe in my constituency, where the maintenance of the buildings costs far more. We are therefore looking, in the comprehensive spending review, for a long-term increase in new money to deliver the first-class education to grow the entrepreneurs who will return the investment that we put into their education while they were at school.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about education funding and how important young people having a good education is to the future of the economy. In this year’s spending review, we are looking not just at how investment in physical infrastructure like bridges and roads improves our economy, but at human capital—where we need to put in extra money to make sure that children and young people leave school, university or an apprenticeship with the skills that will help them to get a good job and to live a successful and fruitful life. That is very important. In the past, Governments have been more interested in spending money on things that are sexy and new—the big new pieces of infrastructure—and maintenance has sometimes taken a back seat, but it is very important to make sure that all the existing assets we have, whether roads or schools, are fit for purpose. In the zero-based capital review, we are looking at the balance between maintenance and new infrastructure investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend has obviously been reading Labour’s “Funding Britain’s Future” document, in which we picked up on that particular point. The hon. Member for Redditch mentioned tax cuts. Try telling that to people who have had 15% and 16% rises in their council tax, because the Government have shunted that on to the people. They are still taxpayers. Try mentioning to them that they have fantastic local services, when increases to their council tax do not even cover social care bills.

The Chief Secretary has bragged about the so-called Tory jobs miracle. However, she made no mention in the speech of the fact that it is built on insecure work, low pay and regional disparities. We have nearly 4 million people in insecure work and nearly 3 million people working under 15 hours a week across the UK. Workers in the north-east earn around £200 less than those in London, reifying the regional imbalance.

[Simon Hoare]

I hate to shoot the hon. Gentleman’s unicorn just as he has started to ride it, but 90% of new jobs created are full-time jobs. This is a total myth that his party keeps peddling. It belies the hard work, initiative and enterprise of the British people. Is it not time to stop misleading?

[Peter Dowd]

Try telling that to the 3 million people in insecure work. It is okay hon. Members jumping up and being outraged at the facts. The facts are stubborn, I completely grant them that. We are not living in the halcyon world that the hon. Member thinks we are living in. There are 3 million people living in insecure work. That is not acceptable in a modern society. The Chief Secretary has done nothing to help headteachers who having to close schools early or the 87 people a day dying while they are waiting for social care, or to assist the nurses, doctors, police officers, social workers, road sweepers, fire fighters, security services staff, civil servants or the back-office staff who keep all those services running day in, day out and night in, night out. Those are the so-called vested interests the Chief Secretary refers to in her regular speeches.

The Chief Secretary recently visited Felixstowe, Walsall and Tadcaster—commiserations to the people of Felixstowe, Walsall and Tadcaster. She said that people want

“the local roads fixed and not to have to sit in a traffic jam.”

Well, the Government are in a big jam at the moment. She went on:

“They want a less crowded commute into work. They want the basics sorted.”

This is after nine years of Tory Government! Where has she been? Did she really have to ask that question? A report today highlights that there are 2 million potholes out there with a £10 billion backlog of repairs under the Tories. No wonder people are sitting in traffic jams—they cannot get through the road for potholes. That is the reality under the Tories. Anyone with a scintilla of awareness already knows the answer to that. The good people of north Lincolnshire were certainly aware of it when I was in Crowle on Saturday, campaigning to rid them of their useless Tory council with the excellent Labour candidates. They want the Transport Secretary to do his job, and they want the Chief Secretary to do hers.

What about productivity—another abysmal failure of Tory economic policy? Productivity remains weaker than in most other advanced economies. The fact is that the Government have failed to prepare the UK economy for the future. Britain’s infrastructure ranks behind that of Germany, France, the USA and Japan in terms of quality, and its rate of public investment is among the lowest in the OECD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Shadow.

[Simon Hoare]

I mean the shadow Chief Secretary. [Laughter.] Of, course, it is a pleasure to follow the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is a greater pleasure to follow her shadow, the emphasis being on the word “shadow”—it is sort of me and my shadow. I call him a friend; I think we get on pretty well when we have a gossip in the Tea Room. He is known for his great sense of humour, and it was deployed beautifully in his speech, which started as a serious attempt and then descended into some sort of 1890s music hall act slightly on its way out—rather like the Labour party and its economic manifesto. I am sorry he did not talk about the need to ring-fence anything in the Budget for the re-education of Treasury officials, which the little red book and Chairman Mao will doubtless be planning the curriculum for even as I speak.

I rise to make a few points to the Treasury Bench. This is a key time in our national economic affairs. The challenge/opportunity of Brexit, including the need for a deal to ensure an orderly withdrawal from the EU, will provide a fundamental foundation for maintaining economic growth and jobs, as my right hon. Friend referenced. From those jobs, of course, come the taxes that pay for the nurses, the doctors, the teachers, the roads and any other project the Government wish to support. We are approaching, if we have not already arrived at, that opportunity which comes with having fiscal headroom and permits choices to be made.

In the last few years—let us be frank—it has been economic management by necessity. We have been trying to deal with the task that we were bequeathed, not by choice, but which the electorate trusted the Conservative party to resolve. Treasury Ministers past and present deserve the nation’s thanks for facing into those difficult decisions. It is all too often characterised, sometimes by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and his colleagues, as an ideological pursuit by the Conservative party that in some way engenders jollity and laughter. I believe that all politicians enter public office and service to improve lives and the lot of our constituents. More and more of our constituents, as they get older, look to public services, and it should always be a matter of pride for a Conservative Government with a sound record of economic stewardship to deliver quality public services as efficiently as possible.

The end of the legacy of the crash and everything that flowed from it now provides that opportunity for choices. I would characterise those choices as needing the striking of a balance that is both sensitive and sophisticated. With my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the helm of the Treasury, I think we have both those characteristics, although I will not say which of them is sensitive and which is sophisticated—probably they will meld into the two. That is important, though, because we now have an opportunity to choose.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I are very much children of the 1980s—our views and thoughts were shaped by the economic miracle that Mrs Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe worked—but we must appreciate that times have moved on. I am very struck by the fact that people in an earning bracket such that 25 or 30 years ago they would have looked to private health provision and education now look to and use state provision. I applaud that. I used the NHS. I had an operation at Dorchester last week, and I use my local education service—we have three girls in our local primary school. It is important to bear that in mind.

My right hon. Friend is right to point to the need for competitive taxation, whereby we can take people out of tax such that they have more money to spend, and it is absolutely right that our policies focus on those on the lowest incomes, but it is also right, in a fair and equitable society, that those who can should shoulder the burden, in a competitive way, to make sure we can deliver those services that people are looking for. I think it is too easy a prescription merely to say that we must pursue an agenda of tax cuts, as if British society had not evolved since 1985, 1986 or 1987. That is where the balance needs to be struck. It may be the balance between a liberal Tory and a more Thatcherite Tory—I do not know—but it needs to be struck.

As other Members have pointed out, as a result of a period of austerity we are now in a period in which the fiscal headroom allows for additional investment. The spring statement was helpful, and what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said about an average increase of 1.2% in departmental expenditure was also welcome. However, we would be foolish to ignore the fact that we are now having to claw our way back from a period in which spending has been—albeit quite justifiably —capped.

Any Member whose constituency contains a prison will notice that the fabric of the prison estate has deteriorated. Some people might say that that is a good thing because we are talking about prisoners, but I am inclined to think that if we are serious about bringing people back into society—the redemption strategy—we need to provide a satisfactory prison environment.

In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, I mentioned schools and the need for the long-term provision of new money in the comprehensive spending review. It is great that we are offering the widest and deepest range of free-at-the-point-of-use educational opportunities in our country, and when T-levels come on stream, it will become even wider and even deeper, but it is folly to suggest that we can continue to provide that, and can make the necessary investment to deliver a happy, educated, productive next generation, with the fiscal envelope currently enjoyed by the Department for Education.

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and thoughtful speech. Has he considered the Government’s policy of placing additional pension demands on schools in an unfunded way? If so, what does he think of it?

[Simon Hoare]

In an intervention on the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Gentleman referred to something that I am sure we have all heard from headteachers in our constituencies. Whether we are talking about national insurance, about pensions or about the demands of special educational needs, although increased DFE expenditure is going into most of our schools, it is nowhere near enough. We are asking schools to do more for more pupils with not quite as much money as they need. That is why I make the distinction. I welcome the increase, but new money is required, particularly as the range and the choice become wider and deeper.

I challenge anyone who represents a rural constituency, as I do, not to share my views on rural schools. I was delighted when the Chief Secretary took my point about the needs of maintenance. The costs of heating and running a whole estate of Victorian primary schools are greater than those in new build, perhaps in an urban setting, although that is not to say that there are no Victorian schools in urban settings. Such schools do not provide a good learning environment. Last month, I visited Motcombe primary school in my constituency. In a small classroom, one child is effectively being fried against a not particularly adequate heater, because the school does not have enough money to replace the heating system.

We must make a balanced judgment: we must aim to take those at the lowest end of the earning spectrum out of taxation, while also investing properly. We must strike that sensitive and sophisticated balance. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right: it is not just the big and sexy that we must consider, but schemes for local roads such as the C13 and the A350 in my constituency, and support for those who wish to remedy the rural broadband and mobile blackspots, which could become engines of economic growth and entrepreneurialism.

That takes me to my closing point, to which the hon. Member for Bootle alluded. Some of our recent debates appear to have pitted my party against the Government. I am sorry—I meant to say “against business”. [Laughter.] That was not a Freudian slip—or perhaps it was.

Business is the engine that generates the tax that delivers the services. We cannot have a hostile viewpoint; we cannot have a hostile environment for UK business to flourish. Without a flourishing business sector, without the freeing up of the entrepreneurial spirit that underpins the British character, the proceeds of growth—

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

I am drawing to a conclusion.

We all want to see the proceeds of growth and the investment in our public services that is required.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Members.

In opening for the Opposition today, I shall start with a few general comments on the Bill before moving on to my substantive remarks on child poverty and equality. First, I must mention the new schedule the Government have tabled, at this late stage, on intangible fixed assets. It is yet another example of the Government’s absolute contempt for parliamentary processes—a result of their desperation to cling to power. Although the Chancellor announced this proposal at the Budget, the introduction of this detailed schedule at this stage of the Bill guarantees that Members are denied the opportunity to scrutinise it properly. It circumvents the Public Bill Committee process, which was created to ensure that technical measures such as this one receive forensic and detailed analysis. This is no way for any Government to conduct legislation. With that in mind, perhaps the Minister could explain why this measure has been included at the final stage of this Bill, denying Members the opportunity to properly scrutinise it. Is it a deliberate decision to once again circumvent parliamentary process? Will he consider withdrawing the schedule and including it in the next Finance Bill later this year, ensuring that it receives the proper parliamentary scrutiny it actually warrants?

It appears that Ministers are hellbent on starting this new year in the same fashion that they ended the last—by treating Members of this House as a peripheral part of the law-making process, bypassing parliamentary processes and breaking long-established conventions. The vast majority of Members in this House are fed up to the back teeth with the Government’s attempts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Given the heinousness of the charges that the shadow Minister has laid against Her Majesty’s Government, I presume that this is further grist to his party’s mill for a no-confidence vote. When will that be tabled and debated in this place?

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I don’t think he is taking it seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. The economy thereafter, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, started to go down the pan. To this day, we have not recovered, and the Government’s own figures indicate that this will go on for many more years. We will have more of the same, and it is not working. When will they learn the lesson? They seem to be incapable. Even the IMF recognises the failure of austerity and has called for increased public spending to offset the negative economic effects of Brexit.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this fascinating tour de force on the period since 2010. If the Labour party in government was doing so fantastically well, growth was going so well and its economic management was prized highly by the electorate, why did it lose the general election in 2010 and then in 2015? If all was going so well, why did it lose?

[Peter Dowd]

I am sure the House would be delighted to hear my psephological analysis of the general election, but we are talking about the Finance Bill. You are very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think even you would be sufficiently generous as to hear my psephological comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that precise contribution. I cannot understand why the Labour party has voted against increases to the level at which people start to pay tax, because helping people to keep more of their earnings in their own pockets is fundamental to increasing house ownership and to building a fairer economy.

[Simon Hoare]

I trust that my hon. Friend’s question was not a rhetorical one, but perhaps I can try to answer it. As far as socialism is concerned, it is absolutely fine until Labour Members have run out of other people’s money to spend. That is why they are opposed to these things.

[Vicky Ford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

I also want to talk about fairness. Yes, it is true that the provision also increases the rate at which people start to pay a slightly higher rate of tax, but the biggest impact is on those on the lowest level of tax. That is why the tax gap—the difference between the highest and lowest levels of income—has actually fallen. The ratio of the average income of the top fifth to that of the bottom fifth of households has fallen, after taking into account all benefits and taxes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I think I should conclude my remarks, as I am aware that I have been speaking for a while.

New clauses 1 and 5, which call for reviews on specific aspects, have been advocated in a way that suggests that one side of the House cares more about poverty, for instance, than the other, but that is not the case at all. Members on the Conversative Benches care very deeply about poverty and equality within society.

What really matters is the track record of governing parties in these areas. I would raise these questions with the House. Which party in government oversaw an increase in unemployment from 5% to 8%? Which party left office with nearly 4 million workless households? Which party left office with rising absolute poverty? All of us know that it was Labour.

In contrast, under this Government, we have more than 3 million more people in work, the lowest unemployment since the 1970s, 600,000 fewer children living in workless households, falling absolute poverty and rising wages. When it comes down to it, this is what matters—getting right those policies that improve people’s lives, reduce inequality, reduce poverty and make life better for everybody. That is what we should all be backing.

[Simon Hoare]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately).

I rise to oppose new clause 1, and I do so for these reasons. If any Members were so inclined, they should please come and visit my constituency of North Dorset. If they visited North Dorset, they could easily be forgiven for thinking that everything in the garden was rosy. There are pretty villages, attractive market towns, lush fields, healthy-looking cattle grazing and a strong local economy where unemployment is virtually zero. If Polly Toynbee or the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) were to arrive in North Dorset and say to me, “Simon, would you take me to your most deprived ward?” I could not, because I do not have one, but I know that I have pockets of deprivation and of poverty in each village and market town in my constituency.

One of the big challenges facing any suite of financial policies is recognising that poverty manifests itself in various ways and guises, but right the way across our nation. It is, I would suggest, far easier to identify large pockets of urban deprivation and poverty. The real public policy challenge is also to recognise and address those of rural poverty, often in sparsely populated areas where the instinct—maybe it is part of the rural community DNA—is slightly to shy away from asking the state, either local or national, for support and to demonstrate a strong sense of resilience and smaller communities trying to work together, although that is no excuse for any Government to shy away from focusing like an Exocet on trying to deliver policies that help to address rural poverty.

I am motivated by this every day. I know the figures move around, but the average national salary for the UK is in the region of £24,000 or £24,500 per annum, as I understand it. In North Dorset, when I was first elected in 2015, the figure was £16,500 and it has just risen to about £18,000, but rural jobs always pay less, if people are in the agricultural sector, food production or the hospitality trade. In those rural areas we do not have those big, high-paying employers. That is why we should always focus on trying to deliver support.

[Laura Smith]

I find myself agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about rural poverty. I am an MP in Cheshire, and our local food bank expresses real concern about the rise in the number of people who live in rural areas having to access the food bank. He is right about pride, and another relevant group is elderly people, who often will not access help and support, so it is important to mention rural poverty.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not entirely sure whether her support of me or my support of her has damaged her career more than it has damaged mine. We will leave our respective Whips to adjudicate on that. Nevertheless, she is absolutely right, and she is absolutely right to highlight that often incredibly annoying sense of pride when a retired person comes to an advice surgery. I say, “Look, we can try to help you to get this, that and the other,” and they say, “No, I don’t want to, Mr Hoare. I don’t think it is right. I have never asked the state for anything.” There is some locked-up pride among some of our retired citizens and we must forever say to them that the state in all its manifestations is there to provide. The second duty of the state, after keeping the country safe, is to provide that safety net that delivers self-respect and the opportunity for people to live with some semblance of dignity and happiness, particularly in their later lives.

Those in later life are a group that is often hard to reach. They will never be contacted through the digital economy; they need to be outreached to. I make the point again—I know the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) will agree with me—that one of the great challenges in sparsely populated rural areas is that outreach is often harder, because there is not that dense concentration such that at almost every door one knocks on in an area one would say “Yes, this is the area that requires most attention.”

[Vicky Ford]

I thank my hon. Friend for painting this clear picture of rural poverty, but pockets of poverty occur in urban constituencies such as mine, too. Does he agree that poverty is about not only how much someone earns but the cost of living? That is why it is so important that we focus not just on the relative poverty measures that the Labour party focuses on, but on reducing absolute poverty, which is the measure that this Government have succeeded in dealing with.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pinpoint the cost of living. Opposition spokesmen sometimes dispute this, but it is more expensive to live in a rural area. It is more expensive to heat one’s home. Travel costs are higher, usually in the absence of public transport, meaning that the running of a car is not a luxury but a necessity if one is to access even the most basic of public or retail services.

[Martin Whitfield]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Simon Hoare]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, because I want to refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that he will not think it is untoward for me to say this, but the passion with which he delivered his speech was powerful and incredibly compelling. He struck on a point that I was going to make and on which I had jotted down a note or two, and it is a point I have been making in recent speeches around the place. I often admire the Labour party—

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Stop there. [Laughter.]

[Simon Hoare]

There is always a “but”, though. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that my career has definitely gone now. I did not even know that I had a career, so that is going to be interesting.

There is usually no embarrassment on the Labour side at talking with passion about the burning injustices that we see in all our constituencies and having a clear determination to do something about them. There is no inhibition at all on the Labour side. On my side—I say this as somebody who has been a member of our party since 1985—I occasionally find that we get slightly inhibited about talking from the heart. Other Members have referred to this. We can bandy the statistics about—relative or absolute, percentage this versus percentage that, up, down, more in this, fewer than the other—but it does not matter, because if someone is poor, the statistics do not affect them: they are poor. They want to know that their elected representatives, locally, in this place and those in Whitehall are doing their damnedest to make their life just a little better.

I make this plea to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench: we on the Conservative Benches do not talk enough about the whys of politics. We talk a lot about the whats, but we do not say why. We find homelessness gut-wrenchingly upsetting. We find the closing down of hope, aspiration and life expectancy intensely moving, and we burn with the desire to help. It certainly motivates me every morning to get out of bed and to do my best for my constituents in whatever way I can by supporting policies that I fundamentally believe have the power to make our local economy, and therefore my constituents’ lives, better. If anybody in this House is not motivated by that fundamental political passion to stir up the soul to go and do something about it, I say to them with the greatest of respect that they should not be here. That, I think, must be our principal function. Members from both sides of the House want to arrive at a place where aspiration, hope and opportunity are available for as great a number of our citizens as we can possibly facilitate.

We also want to make sure that the economy is buoyant. Why? Because warm words butter no parsnips. The emotional speeches may salve our consciences, but we need the economic policies that deliver the taxes and pay for the safety net below which, I am determined, none of my constituents should, or will, ever fall on my watch. We need to be ever vigilant to make sure that our economic policies are delivering that growth.

[Martin Whitfield]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I say with the greatest respect that he is making a very good speech for the two new clauses. The knowledge gained from reviewing policy implementation feeds into the decisions that go forward, so, at this stage, I invite him to support the two new clauses.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman is—what’s the phrase?—pushing his luck on that. I think that the divide here will be on the theoretical and the practical. I am always conscious that we can go to any Minister’s office, or any Department, or any local council, and find gathering dust, spiders and dead flies on many a window sill reports, reviews and assessments of this, that and the other, and they have a pretty short shelf life. I would much prefer to spend Government time focusing on delivering those policies of hope and growth.

[Laura Smith]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady has winked at me in such a beguiling way that of course I will give way to her.

[Laura Smith]

I would just like to put it on the record that I absolutely did not.

[Simon Hoare]

You winked.

[Laura Smith]

It was just a northern smile; that was all.

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that he has massively contradicted himself? His speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) has said, would indicate that he should really be supporting these new clauses, and yet, when pushed on it, he is not. Does he not agree that that is why people in the outside world become frustrated with politicians who are very good at speaking in one way, but who act in another?

[Simon Hoare]

It was all going so well, wasn’t it? I agree with the hon. Lady that many people become incredibly frustrated when a Minister of any political persuasion delivers a speech that makes them think, “Something good is going to flow from this”, but then very little has actually happened when they come to think about it.

I would prefer to do the doing rather than the reviewing. I do not need a whole series of reviews to tell me that there are poor, deprived people who live in North Dorset. I do not need tables of statistics to tell me that I am going to hold the Government to account to ensure that policies are delivered to provide support for those who need it, to encourage a ladder of expectation and aspiration for those who wish to scale it, and to put policies in place to ensure that we remain a civilised and humane society. I do not need a whole bookcase of learned treatises to tell me this. It was strange that the hon. Member for Gedling made exactly that point—that he did not need a whole load of statistics and reviews—when that is actually what new clauses 1 and 5 are calling for.

I do not need these pieces of paper to tell me that it is the first duty of a Government of any colour—even if it were the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) sitting on the Government Benches and my right hon. Friend the Minister sitting on the Opposition side—to try to ensure that the economy grows and that opportunities are presented.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

As well as not needing to do these reviews, does my hon. Friend agree that we should be looking at our track record—at what has actually happened when it comes to getting the deficit and the debt down? Surely that is what people will be looking at. What gives them the most comfort that we will be able to deliver on our promises in the future is that we have delivered on them in the past.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right, but I think people will look at it differently. I think that most people in this country come to an evaluation of an Administration, irrespective of which party happens to be in power, based on whether they and their family group feel more secure, more prosperous and more confident about their opportunities, and on whether they can see that the opportunities for the next generation of their family are going to be deeper and wider than those presented to them when they were making their first choices.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

If I may say so, my hon. Friend is making the speech of his life. In a finance debate, it is particularly good to hear a speech about burning injustices, and I agree with him that this is the right place to be having this debate. In turn, does he agree with me that employment is at the base of dealing with all those injustices?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) slightly misheard my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans said precisely what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, which was that although the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was in a tight or low-income household, it was a house of work.

[Laura Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Of course, but let me just finish this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis).

Where did we all learn that it was normal and expected to get out of bed in the morning, have a bit of a wash and a tidy-up, get ourselves to school and then on to work, and all the rest of it? It was from our parents. Growing up in Cardiff, I can remember large council estates where worklessness was endemic, and where the welfare state had not been that support, safety net or springboard, but had instead become a way of life for too many people. If that is the case, how on earth can we expect anybody to learn the work ethic?

I chaired the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis, which two years ago held an inquiry into people with MS who were in work and wanted to stay in work. Without reducing employability to a utilitarian argument, for people to feel that, even with a painful degenerative condition, they could still play an active, productive role in their family’s life, in the life of their community and thereby in the life of the economy nationally, had a huge impact on their mental health. I therefore entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who speaks with great passion on this issue.

An understanding of employment and the benefits that flow from it has to be rehearsed again and again by Treasury Ministers and other Ministers. We take this for granted, possibly because it is in our DNA and possibly because it is the only thing that we have ever known, but we must be conscious that there are others in our country who have not. We should be advocates, apostles, evangelisers and any other word one could think of in shouting from the rafters the strong benefits of employment.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has employment benefited but, since 2010, this Government have delivered a reduction of 661,000 in the number of children living in workless households—so over half a million young people are now growing up in a home where they are getting those lessons on the importance of work—and have also reduced the number of children living in absolute poverty by 200,000?

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend helps me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury by amplifying the point.

I said earlier that I was born and brought up in Cardiff. One of my abiding memories was of my late grandmother, who was born in 1908, and what motivated her throughout the whole of her life. She was the daughter of Irish immigrants. When she was at school—a Catholic primary school called St Patrick’s in Grangetown —a teacher brought a child to the front of the class, theatrically held their nose, and said, “Boy, go home, you smell.”

I can remember, in different circumstances in the 1970s, my Catholic primary school in Cardiff called St Mary’s. It was the school that my mother had gone to as well. It drew from a mixed economic demographic. There was a family with three children—I can see them now. If I sound emotional on this point, it is because I am. I am emotional because I can remember—although this may sound entirely preposterous and pompous—how I felt as an eight or nine-year-old, as I was, seeing this family. The mother always looked underfed. The father always looked harassed to death. The children, one of whom was in my class, had a colour of poverty. They had a smell of poverty. Poverty has a smell about it. It has a posture about it. It says, “We are beaten.” At the age of eight, nine or 10, I can remember looking at my classmate and thinking, “What can I do?” I realised that I could do nothing apart from provide a bit of friendship and support, and I did it as best I could, as I am sure that anybody would.

But that impotence of an eight-year-old has disappeared, and I can now stand here as a 49-year-old—[Interruption.] Yes, only 49—I know. I have had a hard life—that is what I tell my wife, anyway. I burn with the sense of injustice that the hon. Member for Gedling expressed. We are all in a position in this place where we are not impotent—we can actually do something about this. If I thought that Her Majesty’s Government were not as committed as I am on this issue, I would be in the Lobby with Opposition Members, but I do not think that. I think that the strategy of the Finance Bill is right. Our values and our principles must shine through. I urge Treasury Ministers and other Ministers to talk a little more about the why of what we are doing in our politics and a little less about the percentages and statistics.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to talk about a few issues, many of which have been brought up during the debate. The first is the subject of new clauses 1 and 5, both of which I support, and the way in which they have been written. I stress to the Government, and particularly to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the reason why the new clauses call for reviews is that we have no amendment of the law resolution, which means that we cannot put forward more robust amendments that ask the Government to do things. If we could have tabled more robust amendments, we would have done so, and I am sure that the Labour party would have done so as well. The Government have chosen to hamstring us and, as I have said before, when Conservative Members are sitting on the Opposition Benches, they will regret this behaviour. The fact that they chose not to move an amendment of the law motion makes it much more difficult for us to table any substantive amendments, but we are doing our best.

The things that we have managed to do during these Finance Bill debates are unparalleled in the Scottish National party’s history. We have managed to have two substantive amendments accepted to the Bill. I had two amendments accepted to the previous Finance Bill, but they were particularly minor. These ones are much more substantive and call for reviews. One of those amendments fits nicely in this section of our proceedings, as it relates to the public health effects of gambling. I am pleased that that amendment continues to be in the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister bringing forward that review in the next six months, as we have called for him to do.

There are various reasons why a Government can choose to change or introduce taxes. They can choose to have a tax to raise funds for the Government. They can choose to have a tax relief to encourage positive behaviour, or a tax to discourage negative behaviour. They can choose to have a tax to do one of the things that the Opposition and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have been keen to talk about. They can choose their priorities. They can choose to have a tax system that aims to reduce child poverty, reduce inequality and increase life expectancy, and we are asking for that to be the Government’s focus when they are setting taxes.

The Government should be looking at the life chances of the citizens who live on these islands and doing what they can to improve those life chances. That is the most important thing—it is why these reviews are being asked for. Whether or not the taxes that the Government have set are appropriate, we are asking for a change of focus and a change of priority, and I think the hon. Member for North Dorset was agreeing with that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I think we are all of a common purpose, which is to protect the economy and jobs. The six tests simply seek to hold the Government to their own statements, but I do not want to be dragged into a knockabout about that. We are beyond that now; we are now in a situation where the country expects us to work together to secure a majority.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s third point is no different from the approach that the Government have taken, so there is clearly a unanimity there. He started his speech in a serious and sober tone, which is to be welcomed. However, my constituents fear—as do I, and many Government Members—that warm words butter no parsnips and that in his pursuit of political instability through a general election, he is prepared to sacrifice the jobs and economic opportunity that he and I hold dear, on the altar of party politicking.

[John McDonnell]

Let me deal with that. I have with me copies of Labour’s composite motion on Brexit for conference—some of them have Labour party application forms on the back, which might interest the hon. Gentleman. That was a joke—[Interruption.] Not a very good one. At conference, we gave priority, which we have upheld, to securing a deal that will protect jobs and the economy. Only if we cannot achieve that do we have the fall-back position of a general election, but we are striving as best we can to secure the best deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I will press on. I think I have been fairly generous in giving way.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice. That is absolute generosity. I will press on, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

The Government need to recognise what motivated the Brexit vote. Over time, industries that sustained whole communities around the country have been destroyed or allowed to wither, tearing the heart out of our towns, from fishing ports to mining and manufacturing communities. This week’s report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation should be a wake-up call to us all. It confirmed that 1.5 million people are living not just in poverty, but in destitution, including 365,000 children. If we are to learn anything from the referendum vote, it is that so many of our people want change, and the decision on Brexit is fundamentally a choice about the kind of country we want to live in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

As someone who passionately campaigned for and voted to remain in the 2016 referendum, I have watched for two years with growing alarm at the Government’s shambolic, reckless and irresponsible approach to the Brexit negotiations. In those two years, we have seen the leave campaign promises denied. We have seen dozens of Ministers quit and two Brexit Secretaries come and go. We have seen a Government who have spent more time negotiating with themselves than they have with the European Union. We have seen them avoid scrutiny, evade transparency and duck responsibility, and just this week we have seen how the Government have treated Parliament with contempt. No one can deny that this Government’s handling of Brexit has been a mess, with a miserable, failed deal from a miserable, failing Government.

I have received literally thousands of emails, postcards, letters and surgery visits from constituents in Battersea who share this view. They are fearful that this Government are asking Parliament to vote for a withdrawal agreement and political declaration that will not protect jobs, rights or the economy. They are alarmed that the Government are asking this House to vote for a deal that their own analysis shows will make us poorer, with GDP falling by 3.9% and every region being made worse off. For our economy, it is clearly a bad deal, and a worse deal than what we already have.

My constituents know that the Government are asking us to vote for a political declaration, supposedly the product of a two-year negotiation, that offers empty promises and lacks legal standing. However, where the political declaration is clear, my constituents know that it will not work in their interests. The aim of frictionless trade has been abandoned, which will hurt our manufacturing industry. It fails to protect workers’ rights or environmental protections, and instead opens the door to the UK lagging behind as EU rights and standards develop. My constituents are concerned that it will allow a future Conservative Government to strip away hard-won EU rights and protections, such as TUPE, equal rights for agency workers and paid holidays.

Along with the rest of the constituency, the 12,000 EU citizens living in Battersea are concerned that we are being asked to vote for a withdrawal agreement that still leaves open important questions about citizens’ rights, particularly on the evidence required for residency rights to be guaranteed. That is particularly troubling when we are being asked to vote without the promised publication of the immigration White Paper, and when the Government have such a shameful record of protecting citizens’ rights, as demonstrated by the Windrush scandal. I know that small businesses in Battersea are deeply concerned. The Government’s shambolic negotiations have already caused damaging uncertainty. This deal, which leaves so many questions unresolved, only adds to it.

Disabled people, too, will be forced to bear the brunt of the Conservative’s botched Brexit. It will be another attack on our rights by the Government, a Government already found guilty of “grave and systematic” violations of disabled people’s rights according to the UN. The EU charter for fundamental rights, which includes protections against discrimination, was excluded from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. We will lose the potential of the proposed European accessibility Act, which contains EU directives that have not been transposed into UK law. That means requirements on the accessibility of goods and services for disabled people will not be guaranteed. We will lose the European social fund, which is currently investing £4.3 billion across the UK until 2020. Whether that funding will be matched is still not guaranteed.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Marsha De Cordova]

No.

Across all these areas, from workers’ rights to environmental standards, economic growth to disabled people’s rights, the Government’s deal will make the great majority of us worse off. That is the grave danger of their botched deal. This is not what the country voted for in 2016. It is certainly not what Battersea voted for and it offers no hope of bringing the country together. Members from across the House know this, so the Government should stop this charade. Their time is up. They are in office, but not in power. The people of Battersea need a Government who work for them. They need their rights to be protected; they need investment in the community; and business needs certainty. We need to put this Brexit shambles behind us and that is why I will be voting against the deal.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

It is not a giant leap in the dark to have a political declaration that makes clear that the deal that both sides will pursue in good faith will have at its heart a deep free trade agreement between ourselves and the EU27 with no tariffs, no quotas, no additional charges and so on, and will give us an end to free movement, end our sending vast sums of money to the EU and see us free to go out and do deals with other countries around the world.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

We can trade predictions until we are either blue or red in the face, but the common-sense folk in the country know that as we leave the EU there are bound to be issues that need to be mitigated. On behalf of my constituents, I just seek this one, hopefully simple, assurance: that the Treasury has the resolve, the agility and the flexibility to address those issues as, when, or if they occur.

[Mel Stride]

I think I can keep my answer fairly short and say to my hon. Friend that we do indeed have precisely the resolve that he seeks.

Economic and Fiscal Outlook

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment of the medium term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Of course, we all look forward to the day when we have left the European Union and we no longer have to file this report. But while we are in the European Union, it is a legal requirement, as part of the stability and growth pact, to present our economic and budgetary plan. Owing, to the opt-out that we negotiated in the 1990s, there are no sanctions or actions should items of the plan not be met. In fact, the only stated requirement is to endeavour to avoid excess deficit. Now, that is something of which I approve anyway and with which we are happy to comply.

I am proud to talk about the record of this Government over the last eight years. We have reduced the deficit by three quarters and have now reached the turning point of debt falling as a share of the economy, which will happen in this financial year. As the Chancellor said in the spring statement, we are now in a much healthier position, but it is very important that we do not abandon this fiscal discipline.

In 2010, the economy was on its knees. We had the highest level of deficit since the second world war, youth unemployment was rising and 1.4 million people were left on the scrap heap. Since then we have turned things around, by reforming the economy and with our fiscal plans. There is a record number of new companies; real wages are increasing; we have record levels of employment; and there are positive signs right across the country. These strong economic fundamentals are down to the decisions of this Government.

We have reformed our welfare system to ensure that it always pays to go to work. We have reformed our education system to make sure that our children and young people have the skills that they need for the modern economy. We have made it easier for companies to take on staff. We have reduced corporation tax. Recently we have seen the two strongest quarters of productivity growth since before the financial crisis. Inflation is set to fall this year and we have seen an easing of pressure on living standards. But despite all this progress, every one of these measures has been opposed by the Labour party.

The shadow Chancellor has said that he sees business as the enemy. Labour Members have opposed our efforts to make Britain open for business and want to go back to the days of punishing taxes and red tape. They have also opposed our welfare and education reforms. [Interruption.] I hear mutterings from the Opposition Front Bench.

These reforms have been accompanied by fiscal discipline. Our fiscal strategy has been vital in boosting confidence in the UK economy and enabling growth in the private sector. We have brought down the deficit by three quarters, and at the same time we have maintained high-quality public services. We spend more per student on education than Japan or Germany, and we have seen our results in reading improve against our international peers. Our health spending is higher than the EU average, and we now have record cancer survival rates. Through our fiscal prudence—that phrase used to be popular on the Labour Benches—we have been able to spend targeted amounts of money to boost our productivity. Infrastructure spending will be at a 40-year high as a proportion of GDP by the end of this period. We are tripling the number of computer science teachers and encouraging more students to take maths at a higher level.

We are now at a turning point. After the highest debt that we have seen in Britain’s peacetime history, we will see debt as a proportion of GDP falling. To people who say that now is the time to turn on the spending taps, I say that would be premature. It is very important that we bring down debt as a proportion of GDP. We know that economies with high levels of debt see a drag on their growth rates and are less resilient to external shocks. We also know that we are spending a huge amount on debt interest. With the debt interest we spend—£50 billion a year—we could completely abolish council tax, business rates or fuel duty.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most tempting phrases that we often hear from the Opposition Benches, but the one to be resisted most strongly, is “Borrow to invest”? Irrespective of what one does with the money, one is still borrowing it and it still has to be paid back.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. We are switching spending from current spending to investment, and that is why we have a 40-year high in our infrastructure investment. He is absolutely right that any spending increases the national debt. Because of the actions of the previous Labour Government, who spent 45% of GDP in the public sector and built up a huge debt, it is our responsibility to bring the debt down and make sure that the country gets back in balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, a prerequisite of the UK’s participation in the EU has been regular submissions of the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. I think the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will appreciate that one of the advantages of leaving the EU—for once, everyone on the Conservative Benches will agree—is the humiliation, wincing and cringing that the Government will forgo when they no longer need to submit their economic record to the scrutiny of European colleagues. The Government are rudderless, collapsing in on the weight of their own contradictions and economic ineptitude.

Let us turn to the record. While countries in the eurozone post a 10-year high in terms of economic growth, the UK under the Tories is left behind. Let us look at the seven deadly sins of the Tories. No. 1 is self-delusion, which we had in spadeloads from the right hon. Lady. Last year, growth in our economy was the lowest in the G7, and growth in the first quarter was the weakest since 2012. The Office for Budget Responsibility has now revised forecast growth down in both 2021 and 2022 since the Government’s autumn Budget, and growth is lower in every year of the forecast compared with March 2017. The upbeat tone of the Chancellor at the spring statement betrays the economic reality that many have experienced over the last eight years of Conservative mismanagement, and while the Chancellor may want to blame recent poor growth on a bit of bad weather, those of us living in the real world see an economy desperate for investment.

The second sin is sloth. The Government have provided the slowest recovery since the 1920s, and productivity growth is at its worst for two centuries. On productivity, the Government’s record is one of failure. Productivity forecasts have been revised down this year and for every year of the forecast. While the Treasury celebrates a slight uptick in the productivity figures referred to by the right hon. Lady with a “thumbs up” emoji and manic optimism, the underlying figures show a fall in production and a fall in the hours worked.

[Simon Hoare]

Particularly in relation to point 2, were the hon. Gentleman to be making the report to the EU, which of the options of the shadow Education Secretary would he be reporting—would Labour’s policy be shit or bust?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Those are not normal terms that we would use in the House.

Spring Statement

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I thank the Chancellor for providing me with early sight of his statement, but I have to say that his complacency today is astounding. We face in every public service a crisis on a scale that we have never seen before. Has he not listened to the doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, carers and even his own councillors? They are telling him that they cannot wait for the next Budget. They are telling him to act now. For eight years they have been ignored by this Government, and today they have been ignored again.

The Chancellor has proclaimed today that there is light at the end of the tunnel. This shows just how cut off from the real world he is. Last year, growth in our economy was among the lowest in the G7—the slowest since 2012. The OBR has just predicted that we will scrape along the bottom for future years. Wages are lower now, in real terms, than they were in 2010—and they are still falling. According to the Resolution Foundation, the changes to benefits due to come in next month will leave 11 million families worse off—and, as always, the harshest cuts fall on disabled people.

The gap in productivity between this country and the rest of the G7 is almost the widest for a generation. UK industry is 20% to 30% less productive than in other major economies—and why? In part, the reason is that investment by the Government, in real terms, is nearly £18 billion below its 2010 level. This is a Government who cut research and development funding by £1 billion in real terms. Business investment stagnated in the last quarter of 2017. Despite all the promises, the Government continue to fail to address the regional imbalances in investment. London will, again, receive five times more transport investment than Yorkshire and Humberside and the north.

How dare this Government speak on climate change? This is a Government who singlehandedly destroyed the solar industry, with 12,000 jobs lost as a result of subsidy cuts. The Chancellor talks about the fourth industrial revolution, but Britain has the lowest rate of industrial robot use in the OECD. The Government have put £75 million into their artificial intelligence programme—less than a tenth of what the US is spending.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Talking of artificial intelligence!

[John McDonnell]

The Tory bully boys can shout all they want. They can make—[Interruption.]

Future of ATMs

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted to rise to speak to an issue that I am tempted to say affects all constituencies throughout the country: the future of automated teller machines and their provision to our constituents.

By way of introduction, I should say that this debate was triggered by LINK—the body that co-ordinates most of the ATM network and sets the rules for ATM providers —which has proposed and confirmed changes to its interchange fees, following a rather flimsy four-week internal consultation with its bank and ATM-provider members. The core of the proposal is that LINK will reduce its interchange fees by 20% over a four-year period, from 25p to 20p per transaction. The first 5% reduction—from 25p to 23.75p—is set to take place on 1 July this year. Interchange fees will then fall by another 5% on 1 January next year, with a further 5% reduction in fees expected again in January 2020 and again in 2021.

Concerns have been expressed by Members from all parties and by organisations as diverse as Which? and the Federation of Small Businesses. More importantly, because they are key to the network, ATM machine providers—companies such as Cardtronics—have made significant representations to us. This issue is potentially so serious that the Treasury Committee has been hearing evidence on it. In a statement on 31 January, the Chair of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), said:

“Any significant reduction in free access to cash would be an unacceptable outcome. This will be the first major test for the Payment Systems Regulator. They must ensure that customers do not lose out as a result of LINK’s proposals.”

I shall return to the PSR in a moment or two.

LINK’s proposal comes against the backdrop of significant bank closures, an issue that is often seen through the prism of a rural telescope, but which also affects larger market towns, suburban areas and large city centres. The cri de coeur usually goes up from the banks, as they reduce their estate, of the need to use digital banking. That is an easy solution for very many people and indeed it is very popular—I use it myself—but in rural areas where broadband speed is not as fast as it needs to be and mobile telephone signals might not be strong enough to enable people to log on to banking services, our banks have been very much at the heart of communities, socially and commercially. With their closures, access to cash through ATMs becomes even more pivotal. There was the flimsy consultation by LINK of its members, who clearly have the whip hand, but there was precious little, if any, identifiable engagement with or consultation of consumers in our communities. I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe nothing came through to Members of Parliament suggesting what LINK might be doing.

Reliance on ATMs grows. I know that the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Minister, who I welcome to his place and with whom I have discussed this issue, believe that the use of cash is decreasing. I am sure that he will give us the up-to-date statistics on that, as there is a trend in that direction. The death of cash has long been predicted, but has never actually come about. It has declined by about 34% in the past decade or so, but there is still a need for cash. I am tempted to say that, disproportionately, the need is among our older people—65% of my constituents in North Dorset are over the age of 70—and those on low or fixed incomes who find managing their weekly budgets much easier via cash transactions than merely by contactless payments or by using some other form of card.

Access to the cash that ATMs dispense clearly provides for a social and financial inclusion agenda. You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is amazing when people turn up whom one vaguely knew at university. A friend of mine from university days—yes, I can remember that far back—happens to be the chief cashier at the Bank of England. Victoria Cleland is quoted in The Guardian—I was given this quote, as The Guardian is not the newspaper of choice necessarily in the Hoare household—saying that the predictions of the death of cash are premature and that

“cash is definitely here to stay.”

When the chief cashier herself says

“I personally don’t really use contactless”,

that perhaps says something about the over-reliance of some of our service providers on technology, as they neglect the fact that not all our constituents, including the chief cashier of the Bank of England, feel terribly comfortable using it.

I am very grateful for the submissions that I have received from the Association of Convenience Stores. It does not support the LINK decision. It represents 33,500 convenience stores, and in rural constituencies such as mine where the out-of-town shopping mall and the large superstore is not common, such stores provide not only a retail function but will often host an ATM as well.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I know that the turnout today reflects not the importance of the debate, but the weather. Does he share my concerns about the comments of the chief executive of LINK who went on record before Christmas in the Daily Telegraph, saying that cash machines will largely disappear, and completely disappear in rural areas? Is that not an odd comment from the chief executive of LINK, which is charged with a public service remit to protect cash?

[Simon Hoare]

It is not only odd; it is both perverse and totally contrary to the expectations of the regulator and the duties that LINK ascribes to itself. I will come in a moment to the role of the Government, particularly the Treasury, in this issue. There is a real danger of constituents being caught in a pincer movement between competing business and commercial interests. There are duties or expectations of the regulator, but it has no real teeth to deliver. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I hope to come to that in a moment or two.

The Association of Convenience Stores does not support LINK’s decision. It has raised a number of issues, including bank closures, saying that

“the withdrawal of ATMs has increased the role that ATM providers and convenience stores play in providing consumers with access to cash.”

Of course, ATMs hosted in convenience stores and other retail outlets also provide benefits to the high street and other shopping parades by providing access to cash to facilitate consumer spending. Wanting, quite properly, local money to be spent locally is one of the major arguments deployed by the Federation of Small Businesses with regard to its concerns.

LINK has suggested that retailers could fill the gaps in the ATM network through cashback services. Again, in theory it is probably right. However, the practice of a one or two-man shop—or, indeed, a one or two-woman shop—in an isolated rural setting holding enough cash not just to deal with transactions, but to hand money to people on a cashback basis totally neglects the impact of the insurance premiums that those retailers would have to incur, often in marginal retail businesses. That is not to mention the security concerns of staff working in those shops at a time when rural policing is not of a high visible profile. It seems a rather dangerous premise on which to base a strategy.

I am very grateful for the support of 41 colleagues from across the country and across this House who wrote to Hannah Nixon, the managing director of the Payment Systems Regulator, who has been both punctilious and courteous in her dealings with me. We outlined our concerns in our letter of 29 January, highlighting the potential disproportionate impact on rural areas, although we did not limit our concerns only to rural areas. Again, I thank Hannah Nixon for her promptness, as she replied on 31 January. Her response gave some comfort, but not enough.

I urge the Treasury Bench to think about these things. I appreciate and understand that we want a light touch when it comes to regulation, but a light touch does not mean contactless. A light touch does not mean that we just pull away and let things evolve as is seen fit. Indeed, a number of concerns have been expressed, particularly by the providers of the machines, in relation to what happened across the pond in the United States. LINK here has predicated its decision to reduce the interchange fee primarily—or certainly in great part—because of changes in the market by other providers, such as Visa. We always used to say that when the United States coughs, 20 years later we will probably get the cold. The race to the bottom in reducing overheads through the interchange fee in the United States has led to a significant reduction in the provision of ATMs and in access to cash, often for the poorest American citizens. Let us learn from that example. Let us be alert to it.

I return to the letter of 31 January from Ms Nixon. Two words cause me some concern. She tells me and the other MPs who signed the letter that the Payment Systems Regulator has made

“clear to LINK what we expect”

and that,

“Promoting the interests of users is one of our statutory objectives”.

I am tempted to say that promoting is good, but protecting—looking out for—would be better; and demanding and ensuring, rather than expecting, would give us more cause for comfort.

Sturminster Newton is a very pretty market town in my constituency that saw its last bank close last year. That has been sad. It has had a huge impact on residents and on businesses within the town. My very good friends Andrew Donaldson and Chris Spackman—excellent town councillors and diligent local public servants—have been trying to fill the gap that this has created. The town does have a couple of ATMs, but their capacity is small in terms of the volume of cash they can hold, and one of them has very poor reliability. They were just on the cusp, with Cardtronics, of delivering a new ATM for the town. We should bear it in mind that when Lloyds had its ATM, it was dispensing £180,000 per week, rising to about £200,000 when big events were going on, such as the annual cheese festival.

Councillor Spackman contacted Cardtronics and was put in touch with its EU corporate director. Very helpfully, it was going to come and deliver a new ATM, but that was pulled, citing

“recent proposed reductions to the Link transaction fees”

which

“had reduced the viability of our ATM making it uneconomic for them”—

that is, Cardtronics. He said that he

“doubted any other operator would be interested in installing an ATM in Sturminster Newton”

and that as a result

“there would be ‘cash deserts’ in rural areas”.

Sturminster Newton is quite a small town of about 4,500 people. However, the rural catchment—I declare an interest as it includes the town that my wife and I look to for service provision—has about 18,000 people. Therefore, 18,000 people in a sparsely populated rural area now have real difficulty in getting hold of cash.

I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions, and I am grateful for the answers that my hon. Friend the Minister has given. I drew particular comfort from a letter I received on 7 February from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in his capacity as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He says in the third paragraph:

“I know you have an interest in this issue. The Government has always aligned with MPs on the question of continued widespread free access to cash, and made it clear to LINK that while sustainability of the ATM network is important, it must not put this access at risk.”

So the Treasury Committee, consumer organisations such as Which? and the Association of Convenience Stores, very many Members of Parliament, Cardtronics as a representative of the ATM providers, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary are drawing together a coalition of interest and concern to ensure access to banking and access to cash through the ATM network. I have sat and listened to, and read, submissions from LINK, Cardtronics, and others. Earlier this week, there was a very useful event upstairs in one of the Committee Rooms where both organisations were able to make presentations, and information has been submitted by the regulator.

I ask the Government to accept this point: while the use of cash is on the decline, its death has been greatly exaggerated. Technology will not always fill the gap, and cash will always provide a very important mainstay in our economic and retail life. Against that backdrop, the regulator clearly has a remit, and LINK has an aspiration. The Minister represents Newark, a constituency that in its size and demographic is probably not that dissimilar from my own, and indeed from that of many other Members. I see that his Parliamentary Private Secretary is my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who I have no doubt has similar issues in his constituency.

I encourage the Minister not to take a laid-back approach to this. We must hold people to account and ensure that the regulator has the confidence to be as muscular as possible. The current trend that the regulator and LINK seem to have of retrospective review and analysis of how these things have panned out is not good enough and is not giving comfort to me, as the Member of Parliament for North Dorset, to many colleagues across the House and to our constituents that we are looking out for their interests and seeking to preserve their access to a robust and reliable ATM network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which I hope I will be able to answer over the course of my speech. One of the motivations for LINK and the industry’s actions is to reduce modestly the number of ATMs in those areas with the greatest density, including cities such as London, but their pledge to the Government and to consumers, which I will go on to talk about, is that that will not be to the detriment of those in rural areas, market towns or harder-to-serve areas, which are not exclusively rural but could be areas of greater deprivation, even in cities such as London. We have had a fairly strong promise from LINK and from the regulator that there will be no detriment to rural areas. I will come on in a moment to how that will be enforced in practice.

We all recognise that there is a decline in the use of cash, which is making it harder to maintain our current level of free access to cash. That is the challenge that the changes hope to address. I appreciate that we have to view the issue through the lens of bank branch closures, which affects my constituents and those of most Members across the House. The Government, the financial services industry and the regulator therefore have to act to ensure that the needs of the consumer continue to be met. My comments, on behalf of the Government, represent consumers, not the regulator or LINK. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is absolutely right that we in this House represent the consumers, and their interests must be our primary concern.

Secondly, I wish to address exactly how we do that, which brings me to the particular role played to date by the Payment Systems Regulator and the role it will play in the future, if it lives up to the Government’s expectations. In November, LINK—the main payment scheme behind the UK’s ATM network—launched a consultation on reducing interchange fees by 20%. As I have said, that was designed to reduce the duplication of cash machines in city centres while protecting the more isolated machines. That is the organisation’s stated objective, to which we will hold it to account. At the time, the Government and many Members of this House were clear that any changes must not have a harmful impact on consumers. If machines are lost in cities, the impact should be generally imperceptible, and if they are lost in rural and harder-to-serve areas, they should be replaced, wherever possible.

[Simon Hoare]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the overprovision of ATMs in a city centre environment, but I just want to make sure that he is alert to the fact that ATM providers—the Cardtronics of this world—often use the moneys they secure from such machines to subsidise rural provision. In effect, they are cross-accounting. The opportunity to use that cross-subsidy spare fund will, in effect, disappear as a result of a diminution of ATMs in large cities. That is one of the big problems.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend raises an important point to which the regulator must pay close attention, but it estimates that the impact of the changes will be modest, even in city centres with a heavy density of ATMs. The main operators of card machines—the companies he mentioned earlier—are generally financially successful. This industry has more than £1 billion of revenue a year, and its market caps are between £500 million and £1.5 billion. Generally speaking, these sizable businesses are in sound financial health. There is no reason to believe that the changes will alter that, although the regulator must bear that factor in mind.

The PSR, which the Government established to deal with such difficult issues, has taken the lead in examining the area. It has engaged with LINK and held a consultation. My hon. Friend raised concerns about the scope of that consultation, but the PSR believes that it has engaged with MPs, although perhaps not as much as it could have done. It has spoken to a number of different parties across the country—indeed, future consultations could learn lessons from the number of individuals and parties to whom it chose to reach out.

The PSR has come back with three requirements that LINK’s proposals must fulfil. First, there is a commitment by LINK to do “whatever it takes”—we must remember those words—to protect the broad geographical spread of free-to-use ATMs. Secondly, any cuts in the interchange must be incremental, and at just 5% in the first year. There will be a review after one year, so in July next year there will be a review before the next cut of 5% could, or would, be implemented. I have received assurances from LINK and the PSR that no further cuts will take place unless they are satisfied that there has been no significant material detriment to the rural and harder-to-serve areas. Thirdly, there will be a greater than ever focus on financial inclusion, and LINK will continue filling gaps in the network and protecting those ATMs in areas that are harder to serve.

LINK will maintain all free-to-use ATMs that are a kilometre or more from the next or nearest free-to-use ATM, including where a community loses ATM access because of a branch closure. LINK will increase the subsidy for ATMs in areas with poor cash access to keep free-to-use machines going. It will conduct an annual review not just in the first year but, if the changes continue, every year thereafter. That review will consider the impact of the interchange fee reduction on the provision of free-to-use ATMs as phased in over the four-year period, and take action as and when required.

LINK has promised to place a page on its website from 1 July that will have sufficient specificity for every Member of the House to look at their constituency. It will show every free ATM across the country, so MPs will be able to view availability in their part of the world. The website will highlight any areas where free ATM availability is in danger of being lost and state what action is being taken to tackle that. For example, my hon. Friend will be able to look up the ATM that we have heard about in his constituency and see whether it is in danger and what action is being taken to address that. That is important to ensure that MPs and people across the country—including those local councillors who were mentioned—can continue to monitor and ensure that LINK lives up to its promises.

Finally, the way that the PSR will police LINK’s commitments can, and should, be stringent. We set the PSR up in 2015 with a specific statutory objective to ensure that the interests of the users of payment systems—not those of the banks—are promoted, with robust powers to enforce that. We expect the PSR to step in and act if needed. I have spoken to the PSR and to LINK, and the PSR understands the importance that the Government place on free access to cash, and the strength of feeling in Parliament and the country. Both organisations have made an explicit commitment to do whatever it takes to maintain the network and provide an additional subsidy per ATM at whatever level is required, to ensure that any machine that is in danger of being lost is replaced by another within a reasonable distance.

In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset for raising this important issue that affects my constituents and people across the country. I have been assured by LINK and the PSR that the motivation for these changes is to ensure that the proliferation of ATMs in urban areas is sustainable, and that we continue to have a free-to-use ATM network—an important issue for the whole country and one that sets it apart from many others—but not at the cost of harder-to-serve areas: the rural areas and the market towns. The promise made to me by LINK is that it will do whatever it takes. The pledge has been made to me by the regulator that it will robustly hold LINK to account for that. The Treasury and I will be watching both very hard to ensure that those pledges are fulfilled on behalf of the people of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

No, I do not share that view and I do not think that was a very effective point. There was quite a lot in the Conservative manifesto. Indeed, there were some things in the Conservative manifesto that the Conservatives were rather surprised about, and we have been having friendly family conversations about them ever since. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will discern that there are some better parts of the manifesto which we are most keen to get on with. However, we certainly did not just have a manifesto of page numbers, as I am sure the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) will remember. The smile on his face tells me that he enjoyed some parts of the Conservative manifesto as well. We are all very pleased about that, even though he was probably amused by different parts of that particular publication from the ones that I was amused by and pleased about.

We wish to see a policy that promotes enterprise and growth. That means taxing people in companies with the money fairly and sensibly, but also setting internationally competitive tax rates that they will stay to pay and ensuring that the country is an attractive place in which people want to do business, invest and employ.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is talking about practical application, rather than merely theory. When President Hollande took office in France, he hiked the French tax system in order to squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked, as it were. My right hon. Friend will recall that the wealthy French then moved in very large numbers to Chelsea. The lingua franca of Chelsea changed from Russian to French overnight. People will move to where they find the tax regime benign and fair.

[John Redwood]

That is quite right. And they will all contribute to our tax revenues and not to the French tax revenues in the process, which means the French state has an even more difficult task.

There was one particularly important thing in the shadow Minister’s speech. He correctly agreed with the Government that we need to raise productivity. He would not take my intervention, in which I wanted to raise one of the sadnesses in the long period of Labour Government from 1997 to 2010. The Labour Government had so much money to spend because they inherited a prosperous economy. In fact, they extended that prosperity in the first part of their government before they went for the crash in the end. However, although they had quite a lot of money to spend, there was no growth whatever in public sector productivity over those 13 years.

In this House, we all say we want to raise productivity. Surely we should take a special responsibility for public sector productivity because that is the sector in which we directly spend the money, employ the people, hire the managers, and set the aims and objectives. As the Labour party is particularly close to the public sector in many ways, it would be good if it shared with us some thinking on having a policy that really does promote higher-quality and better-paid jobs in the public sector. If we have a more productive workforce, we can pay them better and create better conditions. That is what we all want to do.