Autumn Statement

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The central point that Scotland might want to focus on today is that the oil forecasts are independently produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, so either the SNP believes that Robert Chote has somehow fiddled the numbers to stack the campaign against independence, or the truth is that it is making a false promise to the Scottish people. The SNP is not being straight with people about the public finance position of an independent Scotland, and it is Scottish people who would pay the price if there was such an outcome, but I think that they are beginning to have serious doubts about the claims that the SNP is making.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend, particularly on removing the jobs tax on young people. Will he confirm that one of the aims of his Budgets has been to ensure that the young people of today do not end up paying for the mess left by Labour?

[Mr Osborne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for what she said. A central part of my Budgets has been to say to the next generation, “We are going to make sure you have the opportunities to succeed. If you have no skills, we will help you to get those skills. If you want vocational work and training, you will get that through apprenticeships. If you want to go on to higher education, you will get support from the lifting of the cap on student numbers, which is a huge reform”—and, as she mentioned, to say—“If you want to get into work, we will help you by abolishing the jobs tax on young people.” Dealing with the debts and deficits is also, of course, a huge part of saying to the next generation, “We will not leave you with the problems we weren’t prepared to tackle ourselves.”

National Infrastructure Plan

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I am rather surprised not to hear the representative of the Green party welcome our commitments to making onshore wind more cost-effective and the big commitment to offshore wind set out in the national infrastructure plan. We must ensure that we have balance in our energy mix, and having nuclear power stations alongside renewable energy is the right mix. The Government are committed to that and I intend to ensure that we see it through.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I welcome today’s announcement on the national infrastructure plan. However, with regard HS2, it was made very clear at the beginning that no individual should be left out of pocket for the sake of a national infrastructure project, so will my right hon. Friend look again at the response that I received from the Department for Transport to a parliamentary question, stating that there would be no support for those families and communities who wished to petition on the hybrid Bill and no financial compensation? In fact, to be able to petition they need to figure it out for themselves, from reams of paperwork, and pay a £20 fee for the privilege.

[Danny Alexander]

I have not seen the correspondence, but if my hon. Friend would like to pass it to me, I will gladly look at it. I have to say, however, that it sounds as through what the Department has recommended is in line with normal practice, and I would not necessarily want to recommend any changes.

Women and the Cost of Living

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady as delighted as I am that this Government have introduced shared parental leave and time off for dads to support their wives? Does she agree with me that what this Government are doing to support the early years is absolutely commendable and that all parties should get behind it?

[Gloria De Piero]

We in government extended maternity leave and introduced paternity leave.

The Government are turning back the clock on women’s equality. Progress on the wage gap has stalled, and women’s financial independence is being undermined. Let us look at the Government’s proposal for a married couple’s tax allowance. It is less than £4 and it will not benefit most married couples. For five out of six couples, it will represent a transfer from the purse to the wallet. It is money to the married man on his third wife, while the single mum, left behind to bring up the kids, will not get anything at all. This Government are taking a lot away from the purse to put a little bit back in the wallet.

This matters not simply for women’s lives and women’s equality, given that increasing women’s employment helped the last Labour Government to lift more than a million children out of poverty. All this progress is now at risk, and progress on child poverty has stalled. I look at my own constituency and see that use of food banks has gone through the roof.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gloria De Piero]

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

One food bank, provided by the Eastwood volunteer bureau, is reporting a 400% increase in use, but it is not only former coalmining areas such as mine that are struggling; this is happening up and down the country. Only yesterday, in reading the Witney Gazette, I learned that another food bank was opening in the town of Carterton, just a few miles from where the Prime Minister lives. The Tory mayor of Carterton recognised the problem straight away—utility bills had gone up and the cost of food had continued to rise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gloria De Piero]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that survey. I shall make sure that I look into its findings.

Many families must decide not when mum will go back to work after maternity leave, but whether it makes financial sense for her to do so at all. According to a survey by Asda, 70% of stay-at-home mums said that in the current climate they would be worse off if they worked, because of the cost of child care. The Government’s response has been to take £7 billion away from families with children, and to remove the ring fence from Sure Start, breakfast clubs and after-school clubs.

The day before the election, the Prime Minister looked down the barrel of a camera and told women throughout the country that he backed Sure Start. Let me repeat his words in full.

“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this. He’s the Prime Minister of this country but he’s been scaring people about something that really matters.”

What about the Deputy Prime Minister? What did he say on the day before the election?

“Sure Start is one of the best things the last government has done and I want all these centres to stay open.”

[Andrea Leadsom]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gloria De Piero]

The hon. Lady has already intervened, and I want to allow others to speak.

Since the election there are 578 fewer Sure Start centres and 35,000 fewer child care places, and the number of breakfast and after-school clubs has been cut in more than a third of local authority areas. As for the women who have found work, it is the sort of work that leaves many families struggling to pay the bills. A record number of women are in part-time, temporary and low-wage jobs. One in four earns less than the living wage, as opposed to one in six men. The Government are wasting women’s talent, and costing the economy too. Where is their commitment to make work pay? On our first day in office, the next Labour Government will offer employers throughout Britain a “make work pay” contract to help them to pay the living wage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is regrettable that Labour likes to portray women as always victims. It is important that this Government see women for what they are—people with all sorts of different ambitions, different needs, different aspirations and so on. It is impossible to define what women want, other than to say that they want to be able to choose and not to be punished for their own choices. Choosing to stay at home and raise children; to work part time and use informal child care; to use nurseries or childminders; to have a stunning career running a FTSE 100 company, or as a pop star or a brain surgeon; to retire early or volunteer for a charity; to care for elderly relatives or disabled children; to be a teacher or, yes, even a politician—what women want is utterly varied, and I am proud of the way that this Government have made efforts to create choice and opportunity for women.

We all know that times have never been tougher economically. Austerity has limited our ability just to keep spending, but it has not stopped the Government’s desire to reform, and to support women in their own choices. There is no escape from the appalling mess that Britain was in in 2010, but the Government have been committed to raising the tax-free allowance for the lowest paid to £10,000 per annum by 2014. In spite of being almost half the work force, women are by far the lowest earners, so keeping more of their income is vital for them. Freezing fuel duty and council tax has helped all families through these tough times. But above all, dealing with the deficit has been and should be the key goal.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend talks about the deficit. Does she think it is responsible for a Government not to tackle that and to pass it on to our children and grandchildren so that they have to deal with the problem?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I was coming on to say that our deficit is not some airy-fairy statistic; it is the debt that is growing from it that is the biggest threat to our children and grandchildren. If we do not sort it out in our lifetime, it will wreck their future. That matters not just to loving mums, but to loving dads and loving grandparents. The Opposition must stop making light of it. It is real; it is there; it has to be dealt with.

Unemployment rose by 29% for women under Labour. Now there are more women in employment than ever before. The unemployment rate for women has fallen to 7%. At all levels we are helping women to build and develop successful businesses. The Women’s Business Council, set up in 2012, is taking many different actions, including providing business grants and mentors to female entrepreneurs. We are promoting business to girls in school and providing student enterprise loans. In the boardroom, under this Government female representation has risen from 12.2% to 17.3% in three years. We have a long way to go, but it is real progress in what women want.

Women and men are working parents. We have just had a debate on child care, and our policies to support the cost of child care through tax breaks, as well as a raft of measures to encourage new childminders to professionalise the nursery work force and to give parents the confidence that they are getting quality child care as well as helping with the cost of it, are vital.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Education Committee’s recent report found that since 2010 more than 30% of child care centres in this country no longer have children in them?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I was not in the Education Committee, but I am absolutely passionate about child care for the very young and the support that we provide to them. As chair of the all-party group on Sure Start children centres, I can tell the hon. Lady that in our year-long inquiry into best practice in Sure Start centres, there was no evidence of wholesale closures. In fact, there is a real focus on improving the outcomes for families and children. I assure her of that. I urge her to read our report.

I also urge all parties to get behind the 1001 critical days manifesto, which looks at what more we can do to support the earliest relationships in families. It is through creating those secure early bonds that we go on to help families to build and develop the emotional resilience that they need to be secure and happy adults. That does not affect only women, but with one in 10 women suffering post-natal depression, and with so much family breakdown as a result of poor early relationships, I urge all colleagues to get behind our manifesto, which was launched by me, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). It is a truly cross-party manifesto, and I urge all hon. Members to look at it. We should all call for support in the earliest years. That would really support women.

However, women are not just parents and they are not just in business; they are also carers pretty much all the time. Most of the caring in this country falls to women. Women look after the elderly, the young and the disabled. They are also very often the volunteers. They do the brilliant work in food banks and in all the charities. I chair the charities PIP UK, the Parent Infant Partnerships UK; NorPIP, the Northamptonshire Parent Infant Partnership; and OxPIP, the Oxford Parent Infant Project. They provide help for post-natally depressed women, and in those charities it is largely women who volunteer. So many women come to my surgeries to talk about their caring responsibilities. Our policy to combine health and social care for the elderly is incredibly welcome to many as it means that their elderly relatives will have a greater chance of longer independent living, and our policy to introduce personal independence payments for disabled adults and children is welcome to many families who recognise the independence it gives them in making those choices.

Above all, our education reforms will give children a real chance in life. Between 2000 and 2009, under Labour, England fell from seventh place to 25th in international school performance in reading, from eighth to 28th in maths and from fourth to 16th in science. Those things—the future of our children—matter desperately to women and men, but very much to women. It is a priority for our Government, as are our 250,000 new apprenticeships and our superb new university technical colleges, ensuring that children are supported in their future choices.

Then, of course, there are women as pensioners. Our pensions system is complicated and serves women badly. On average, women get £40 less in state pension than men and are much more likely to live in poverty, so they welcome our new single-tier pension. It will disproportionately benefit women, ensuring that those who took time out to raise a family do not suffer in their retirement as a result.

In conclusion, women have so much to offer and so many needs. I want to highlight a few other things the Government are doing for women, such as our determination to tackle female genital mutilation, to build and support rape crisis centres, to support refuges for victims of domestic violence and to tackle human trafficking. All these, and many more, deeply held aspirations and needs of women are being addressed and sorted by this Government. I am incredibly proud of our focus on being the future for women in our society. I hope that the Opposition will come to recognise that it is this Government who are helping women to achieve their dreams and that, in order to achieve the equality we are all striving for, they have to stop seeing women as victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

It has not failed the people of Bolton West, where unemployment has fallen by 1,800 in the past year.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

On the subject of the cost of living, does my hon. Friend think it astonishing that Opposition Members do not understand that this Government have done so much to keep council taxes down? If we were still subject to their policies, the average council tax cost would be £210 a year higher.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was not this Government who doubled the rate of council tax, it was not this Government who doubled the rate of income tax for the lowest earners and it was not this Government who increased fuel duty 12 times.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

We heard earlier on that that was a time for a temporary target. We were dealing with the deficit and coping with the legacy left to us by the previous Government. We now have the opportunity to introduce a wider employment allowance. The hon. Lady should not try to teach us lessons about schemes, given the complexity of their scheme, which thankfully, they did not have the opportunity to introduce. How can the fact that 26,000 businesses have benefited and 90,000 jobs have been created be a failure?

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend find it as amazing as I do that Opposition Members can only snipe at schemes that are clearly designed to appeal to existing small businesses and will incentivise the starting up of new small businesses, which is what our economy desperately needs?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right: that is exactly what our economy needs. I have been at the Dispatch Box only a few times, but, sadly, I am not surprised to see the Opposition sniping. That is exactly what we expect. The parties on the Government Benches are about action and putting in place measures to help businesses to take on their next employee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield talked about a culture of entrepreneurialism. I am glad that he had a slightly larger audience than the one he had on Friday, but his remarks have been heard and noted—he should have no fear on that score.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made a thoughtful contribution, in which he spoke of the Government having put in place a package of measures to support businesses. He mentioned the regional growth fund, which is making a difference in our constituencies to businesses large and small, and the investment culture. Hon. Members rightly paid tribute to his work to support start-up businesses through all manner of schemes.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to most of the issues raised. The Bill will help to continue to support a stronger economy in the United Kingdom. It will make avoiding tax harder and make creating jobs easier. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 28 November 2013.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Insurance Contributions Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) provision for, and in connection with, the application of the general anti-abuse rule in relation to national insurance contributions;

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other Act.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is obviously referring to the fact that when this Government came to office, we had the biggest deficit in our post-war history. The previous Government were borrowing £5,000 a second—£300,000 each and every minute. We have reduced that deficit by a third and, as my hon. Friend suggests, that has brought confidence, investment and jobs.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that the worst outcomes for children are in those families where nobody is working? If so, is he as delighted as I am that our economy has generated 1.25 million new private sector jobs since 2010, thereby improving the prospects of millions of children?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend correctly highlights that the best way out of poverty is through work. As she says, the private sector has generated almost 1.3 million jobs over the past three years. In fact, it is the fastest rate of job creation in the G7.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

Well, personally I prefer our new clause 10, but that is a good try by the hon. Lady. She has raised this issue in the spirit of trying to generate consensus on it, but I hope that in the limited time available to us we focus on the principle of making sure we get those commitments from the Government, which we all want in order to help get this transparency about what is happening in localities, as well as making sure we look at the state-owned assets and think about how they might be applicable to a regional banking network.

Government amendment 5 looks at some issues to do with competition, although they are mostly to do with the nature of ring-fencing and changes that might happen to the ownership of ring-fencing. I want to ask the Minister a question about the tensions between some of the objectives in the Bill. Government amendment 5 inserts a new requirement to consider competition issues, which seems to be slightly in tension with the existing provision to make sure there is no significant adverse effect from changing the ring-fencing arrangements. Can he clarify that that tension is resolvable, and confirm that the duty to consider competition will take effect subject to clause 4(3)?

On Government new clause 1 and new schedule 1, can the Minister help us by talking about the practical implications of the amendment to the Companies Act 1985 omitting disclosures to the regulators, done for the purposes of helping them fulfil their functions under part VI of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000? In particular, this appears to stop such disclosures being exempt from section 449 of the Companies Act, which criminalises disclosure of information obtained in certain circumstances. What is the reasoning behind that change? Also, paragraph 2 of new schedule 1 amends section 376 of FISMA, changing “PRA-authorised” bodies to “PRA-regulated” bodies. Is that a significant change? Are there any bodies that are classed as PRA-regulated but which are not PRA-authorised? If so, which are they?

Our new clause 12 addresses the portability of bank accounts. I know that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has been very active on this, and that she has tabled similar amendments. She has been vocal in favour of some of these changes, and has tabled a sensible set of proposals. I hope she would agree that we are mirroring each other on this question.

Our new clause 12 would mandate the Chancellor to publish a report on the adequacy of the current account redirection service and on a possible change in the law to compel all ring-fenced banks to introduce a current account redirection service that might include portability. The banks themselves have made proposals for a seven-day switching arrangement from this September. The Minister claimed in the Government’s response that they had secured that commitment, but that might be a little bit of exaggeration and spin; I suspect that the banks were heading in that direction, but I will let him off on this occasion. This all comes down to whether that seven-day switching will radically transform the convenience for the customer. It is all very well saying that there will be a year or so when some transactions from the existing current account will automatically be made into the new account, but I do not understand why that provision has been time-limited. Some people will forget that that provision expires after a certain number of months.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Interestingly, when we get into the nitty-gritty of how the seven-day switching process will work, we find that it seems to be more string and Sellotape—on top of the string and Sellotape currently holding the legacy systems together—so it is hardly a 21st century technological solution.

[Chris Leslie]

That is the worry, and we want to see how it is going to work. It is all very well if direct debits and standing orders—the sums leaving someone’s bank account—may be switched in that way, without the aggro and hassle of having to fill in new forms and so forth, but one of my anxieties is about payments into an account. For example, even the little step of someone having to tell their employer that they have a new account number and sort code is an inconvenient step too far. Apparently the banks are saying that they might deal with that as well, but this does not feel adequate and sufficient.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is more likely to get divorced than to change his bank account?

--- Later in debate ---

Apparently sovereign wealth funds—in other words, other countries—might well buy stakes in Lloyds and British banks. I am told that apparently LIBOR will be run by the New York stock exchange, so there is a theme developing of other countries getting involved in historically British institutions. I will leave that issue to one side, however. I merely want us to have a clear and comprehensive strategy not just on better competition for the banking sector but so that the Chancellor can prove that he is adept at thinking through properly what to do with the Government’s stake—the taxpayers’ stake—in these institutions. They are fundamental to the British economy; they are massive institutions with a great footprint on our economy and worldwide. That is why we feel that new clause 10 is the least we should have—we should have that level of reporting, of availability of information and of options appraisal. We need a comprehensive assessment that is evidence-led and considers all options. That is an important matter of principle as, ultimately, this must be all about getting best value for the taxpayer.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am delighted to be able to speak about this Bill on banking reform, which is so crucial to the future success of the British economy. All that time ago, Adam Smith said in “The Wealth of Nations” that for free enterprise to exist one needed both free entry and free exit of market players. Over the past 20 years, we have had neither in banking. Failing banks have certainly not been allowed to exit the market, hence all the problems with “too big to fail” and the massive taxpayer bail-outs. New players have also not been able to enter the market, as there have been enormous barriers to entry, and my new clause is an attempt to establish a real game-changer once and for all for the fate of competition in our banking sector, to enable new entrants to come into the market.

I know that the Government have already done a huge amount of work to change the plight for would-be banks. For example, we already know that the new Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority have made it easier for new banks to apply for a banking licence. Previously, there were enormous regulatory hurdles to entering the market for new banks, but now it has become slightly easier because they can get a banking licence that is conditional on their being able to recruit the right people and so on. They do not have to spend millions of pounds up front to evidence the fact that they can be competent as a bank.

The regulatory barriers to entry are gradually coming down, but an incredibly significant point that has not been addressed until now concerns the competition barriers to entry for new players in the market. The Government have made great strides in that regard, not just through the Vickers commission and the recommendations on seven-day switching, which will be a game-changer in enabling individuals and businesses to switch between banks, creating the competition that has been so lacking, but through some of the structural reforms they have announced more recently and the amendments to this Bill.

When I was elected to Parliament in 2010, one of the first things that my colleagues on the Treasury Committee —who are almost all in the Chamber today—and I did was consider the proposal from the Payments Council to get rid of cheques. We discovered in our evidence sessions that the proposal came purely from the banks. It was convenient only for them and absolutely was not convenient for the millions of people in this country who rely on cheques to settle bills, to pay their window cleaner or newsagent or to pay the neighbour who picked up their shopping for them. Millions of people still needed cheques, but it was very clear that the Payments Council planned to get rid of them for the convenience of the banks that owned and ran it. For me, that was the road to Damascus moment; I realised that the banking sector is the last great closed shop. The Payments Council, owned and run by the banks, governs the payments system, the big banks are the clearing banks through which every new challenger bank must go, and the payments infrastructure, VocaLink, is also owned and governed by the big banks.

For decades, the Payments Council has been able to permit or deny innovation in the payments industry. The big banks have been able not to allow challenger banks direct access to the payments system and have required them to go through the clearers, charging them up to 10 times more for accessing the payments system than they have been paying themselves. The first significant decision on which I want to congratulate the Government is that to consult on a new independent payments regulator. That is key to breaking open the banking sector and enabling new competition and transparency. It will be interesting to see just what has changed after the new regulator’s first few months of operation; it will be fundamentally transforming.

Importantly—this is where my new clause comes in—and as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has said, for decades there has been a key barrier to competition in the banking system: the inability to move bank accounts freely and easily. People might be sick and tired of their bank. The Treasury Committee took evidence on opinion polls that suggested that certain banks had negative values when it came to whether customers would recommend them to a friend. People would say, “No, whatever you do, don’t go to my bank.” It is unusual to have such utterly negative recommendation levels between friends for a supplier. Even the energy sector fails to achieve such low levels of recommendations between friends. Something is clearly desperately lacking in customer service.

The Committee also heard some pretty shocking statistics about the failure of certain key banks to respond to customer service inquiries, to manage their call centres properly and to deal with complaints when they happen. It has taken all these banking scandals—payment protection insurance mis-selling, the bank swaps mis-selling and various other scandals—before the weight of evidence became enough for regulators to take action. Clearly the banks have not been good at policing themselves, and clearly it has been extraordinarily difficult for individuals and businesses to vote with their feet and move.

The difficulty is not only the decision to move bank; the person making that decision also faces having to make arrangements as regards their online shopping, their contract with the milkman and newspaper man, and their standing orders for, say, their television licence or their car insurance. If they change bank account, they have to change all those things, because they change bank account number.

The issue is not just whether a person can be bothered to change and go through all that hassle; very often, because of the consolidation that has taken place over the past 20 years, banks will force that situation on a consumer. A colleague told me in the Lobby the other day that their bank had just notified them that they have to change their bank account number, credit cards, debit cards, and cheque-books—everything—regardless of the fact that they do not want to do that, because the bank decided, off its own bat, to send them to another brand name. Of course, there is no compensation, or any way to get the bank to help the person to make all the notifications that they need to make.

Many people, particularly the elderly, have a real concern that if they change bank account things might just not happen; their regular payments might not be made, and everything might go horribly wrong. That puts them in a very difficult position. Of course, there is plenty of evidence of things having gone wrong. Perhaps the seven-day switching process will solve the problem of switching simply going wrong.

It would be a far better solution if, when a person moved bank, they took all their bank details with them. A similar thing happens in the case of mobile telephones.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Lady alluded to the allegedly competitive market in the energy sector, where there is a right to switch, although it can be difficult to do so, as I found out. Switching in itself does not stop companies from acting as a cartel. How confident is she that switching in banking would lead to greater competition in the market?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will come on to that, and that will become clearer in the course of my comments. Certainly, in terms of barriers to entry, the lack of competition and switching—in other words, people’s inertia—has meant that banks simply have not had to compete on customer service. They have not had to fight to keep their customers. As those of us who have been in business know, there are times when we have lain awake at night, wondering how to stop our customers from leaving us tomorrow; that is the big motivator, whereas in the past it was how to nick a tiny bit of market share from one of the big players. The fundamental point is: “How do I hang on to my customers?” Customer retention is always the biggest challenge for every business, where there is free and open competition. That is what bank account portability would ensure.

If a person was switching between banks, instead of having to change all their bank details and cards, and having to remember the new numbers and notify all their suppliers, they would simply take their bank details with them, just as a person who changes mobile telephone provider takes their telephone number with them. That is what the amendment proposes.

I am delighted that the Government have said the following, in a press release responding to the work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards:

“On top of introducing 7-day account switching from September this year the government will ask the new payments regulator, once established, to urgently examine account portability and whether the big banks should give up ownership of the payments systems.”

I take that as a warm move towards the idea of bank account number portability.

Bank account number portability is a game-changer, but it is no surprise that the big banks, when asked about this back in 2010, virtually told us that it would cost so much that the entire world would end. That comes as no surprise to us; they would say that. However, if we scratch beneath the surface and talk to the likes of VocaLink, which provides the payments infrastructure, we find that many of the technological requirements of bank number portability already exist.

At the moment, the big banks own a person’s sort code and account number, and give the payments instructions that they hold for that person to VocaLink, so that it can make that payment. Instead of having that two-step process, in which a person instructs their bank, the bank instructs VocaLink, and VocaLink makes the payment, with bank number portability the consumer’s bank account number, sort code and payment instructions would be held within VocaLink. Instead of a two-step process with the bank at the front end, there would be a one-step process, in which the consumer communicated with VocaLink, and the bank instead provided the customer service front end and the customer proposition. That would completely streamline the system.

[Mr Love]

Is not one of the problems—this was certainly highlighted in our investigations—the ownership of the infrastructure by the banks, and the difficulty in getting them to change? Is not a payments regulator the ideal way to twist their arm, so that they do the right thing?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he has certainly been a keen supporter of bank number portability, as have many hon. Members in the Chamber today. The payments regulator that the Government are consulting on is the first step to achieving transparency. The next step is empowering that regulator to do something to enforce bank number portability when it finds, as I am sure that it will, that to date there has been a completely deliberate attempt to restrict competition in the banking system.

The big banks have said that bank account number portability would cost an absolute fortune, yet the technology already exists. Some people have asked whether it would not be an enormous risk to data integrity if the consumer’s bank account number, sort code and payments instructions were held by VocaLink, but in reality, all the consumer’s details are held by the bank, which passes them all on to VocaLink, so there are double risks to data integrity at the moment. Holding those account details in VocaLink would reduce, rather than increase, the risk.

People also say that other banks cannot access VocaLink’s payments infrastructure directly, because all the banks that clear direct have mutually to underwrite each other’s payments. The smaller challenger banks cannot possibly afford to underwrite the payments of the bigger banks. However, we could easily solve that; already, in various exchanges, banks pre-fund payments. If a bank’s balance were too low, and it was running short of cash with which to meet its outgoing payments, it would be called, intra-day, for more cash. That problem is easily solvable, and the reason why it has not been solved is that that is simply not in the big banks’ interests.

It has also been said that the proposal would surely be incredibly complicated from an IT point of view, but VocaLink has already set up bank accounts for the Department for Work and Pensions, because a lot of the Department’s benefits customers do not have bank accounts. VocaLink is already able to manage customer account details for DWP customers, so the technology already exists. I simply do not accept the idea that there would be eye-watering costs. Chief executives of big banks have literally said it would cost trillions—absolutely vast sums—but I challenge them to provide any scrap of evidence that shows that is the case, and that their refusal is not down to their desire to restrict access to new players.

The advantages of bank account number portability are, of course, the elimination of barriers to entry, and increased competition as a result. One of the big problems for new entrants is that it is so difficult to gain customer share, because people will not move bank accounts. With bank account number portability, if I, as a customer, was sick and tired of my bank, I could move tomorrow, the day after, and the day after that, if I was not getting good service, and it would not be any skin off my nose; it would be perfectly easy to do, and it would be the banks’ problem. That would be an enormous change in the competitive environment.

Likewise, there would be far greater consumer choice. Bank account number portability would encourage the likes of Tesco Bank and Marks & Spencer Financial Services—any big, multinational conglomerate—to go into the money business; it would become yet another product line. That in itself would eliminate some of the problems of “too big to fail”, because there would be many more smaller players, which would have many product lines, and therefore would not have all their eggs in one basket.



For small businesses the change would be revolutionary. At present one of the biggest problems for small businesses is that the big banks require that as well as their company accounts, small business people have their personal accounts and mortgage with the same big bank and do all their foreign exchange, overdraft, loans and other transactions through that bank. It is incredibly difficult for a small business to move accounts because of the complexity of all their suppliers and all the people they are trying to trade with. The barriers to entry for them are perhaps even greater than they are for us as individuals. Again, being able to take their bank account number with them would change the position dramatically.

Another huge advantage that is not often talked about is that since the 1990s, when I was running Barclays bank’s team, an enormous consolidation has taken place. There used to be 44 big banks in the UK; there are now about 22 banks of any size. The consolidation meant that during the 1990s many banks took over other banks, broker- dealers, small fund managers and so on, so they have an enormous number of legacy systems. They have managed to string them together over the years, but bank fraud in this country alone is huge. Changing the payment system would dramatically reduce the incidence of bank fraud. Intellect, the IT trade body, has said that the change could reduce the incidence of bank fraud by up to £30 billion a year.

Finally, another key advantage of bank account number portability is resolution. Andy Haldane, the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, has gone on record as saying that it would be the solution when the day comes that a big bank fails again. We have, of course, put in as many steps as we can. Basel III will make great strides towards ensuring that banks cannot fail again. We have created our new regulators. We have ensured that banks have proper leverage and proper capital. All those measures are designed to ensure that banks cannot fail again, but we know that banks will always fail. That is the reality in a western developed market economy such as ours. We saw only too recently the problems with Northern Rock, when people were desperate to take their money out. The answer to resolution is for the Bank of England to be able to say, “You have failed. We are now taking all your accounts and putting them with survivor banks.”

There is a huge amount going for bank account number portability, above and beyond the seven-day switching process. My new clause calls for the Government to ensure, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a full cost-benefit analysis of bank account number portability. Should the findings be that this is a good idea, and should it produce the kind of benefits that I have just described, the regulator should be empowered to implement bank account number portability. I welcome the Government’s assurances that they will move in that direction. On that basis I will not press my new clause to a Division, but I urge the Government to keep up the momentum and ensure that before too long we have full account number portability.

[Caroline Lucas]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to my new clause 15. It is a modest proposal for a full Government consultation on the potential for local stakeholder banks to be carried out before we sell off RBS or any other taxpayer-owned banking assets.

I was interested to hear the Minister mention yesterday his trip to Germany and how he saw in the pages of the Handelsblatt a big headline saying, “City of shame”, referring to the City of London. I agree that this is a stark illustration of the impact of financial mismanagement and of our current banking system on people’s views of the City. However, although I also agree that this highlights the need for improved standards in banking, I think it highlights, too, the need for a radical reappraisal of ownership and accountability structures, if we want to have a banking system that we can be proud of, not ashamed of.

I hope that during the Minister’s trip to Germany he also found time to look at the savings banks, the Sparkassen, that we have spoken about this afternoon and which make up about one third of the German banking system. They are run commercially with dual financial and social objectives, to make a profit and to support the local economy. Professional bankers take responsibility for day-to-day running of the banks and if they make incompetent lending decisions, they are more likely to get sacked than their counterparts in giant commercial banks. Local stakeholders, including local politicians, business leaders, employees and customer representatives, sit on a supervisory board. That is just one example of the sort of local stakeholder bank that my new clause seeks to promote.

The New Economics Foundation analysed data from 65 countries where such alternatives thrive. They include co-operative banks, credit unions, community development finance institutions and public interest saving banks. The common characteristic is the goal of creating value for stakeholders, not just for shareholders, and some exciting and incredibly positive trends emerge. First, a greater focus on the needs of customers, including more competitive products, better service and longer-term lending; secondly, provision for customers who are currently under-served by regular banks; thirdly, a boost to local economic development through lending to small and medium-sized businesses, preventing capital drain from the regions and maintaining branch networks; and finally, a positive impact on financial stability through less volatile returns, high levels of capital, prudent balance sheets and expansion of credit provision after the financial crash.

--- Later in debate ---

There is another reason why we need a study. Ultimately, I do not think that the banks’ argument that this will cost too much carries weight and I think they know that. If I got out my crystal ball and peered into the future, I think I would see that the key argument will be about IT and privacy, not cost.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The right hon. Gentleman may recall a meeting we had with senior bankers in which they said that, although they were reluctant about bank account number portability, if it is going to happen let us make sure that we will be the first country in the world to do it and not wait until somebody else does it. That would give us first-mover advantage and it could provide a huge business opportunity for UK plc. What does the right hon. Gentleman think of that idea?

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Lady may be right and that is another reason that we should have a proper report to drill into the issue.

On privacy, in addition to the cost argument I think that customers could also be discouraged by the argument that all their account details could be held in a single black box to which all the banks in the country have access.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I also rise to support new clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and to which I have added my name.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) chaired a panel of the banking commission and one of the first visits we undertook was to Birmingham, where we had a number of sessions, one of which was with representatives from small and medium-sized enterprises who were very vocal about the importance of securing a fair deal from the banks.

Which? organised an evening session that allowed us to visit different tables where individuals talked about their experiences. I had an interesting experience when I asked a table of people of a variety of ages, although mostly younger than me—not that that is difficult—about the ability to switch bank accounts. They were not really that keen and said, “It’s too much hassle. Why bother? It won’t be any different.” I said, “Suppose you could do it in the same way that you change your mobile phone, where you take your SIM card-equivalent and plug it into another machine.” At that point they all said, “Oh, that would be wonderful. What a good idea. Is it possible?” I said, “Not yet, but it is very likely to happen.” They said, “Actually, even that won’t work because it will just be the same old names that I will be going to.” I said, “How would you feel if the chap who has that nice transatlantic airline had a bank?” They said, “Oh yes, that would be jolly good.” That bunch of average customers had no idea that it might be possible to move accounts and no idea of the array of accounts that might be available as a result.

That experience drove home to me that the relationship between banks and their customers has been the reverse of what it should be. We go cap in hand and say, “Will you please take my account?” It ought to be the other way around. The banks should be coming cap in hand to us saying, “Please can I have your business?” New clause 14 goes to the heart of that dilemma. All right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have made the point that the new clause is not a silver bullet and that many other measures are required, but it would be one of the key enablers of that change in the relationship, along with the payments regulator and other things that might be done. Ultimately, we need banks to be genuinely fearful of losing business—at the moment they are not, because they know that people cannot go anywhere else —and genuinely to want to win business. The commission has made progress on that and new clause 14 is very much a part of that.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire told us early on that she will not press her new clause to a vote. I always find that Ministers go a bit further if one waits until they have said nice things before telling them that. Clearly, she has had a tremendous impact on the Minister ahead of the debate. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I do have great expectations of the Minister’s response.

[John Thurso]

I was going to say something about “A Tale of Two Cities”, but I will leave it at my hon. Friend’s great expectations.

Spending Review

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I tell you what has happened while this Government have been in office. First, borrowing has come down—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor says it has gone up, but the problem is that if this really is his maths, the country would be in very serious trouble if he ever got himself back into Downing street. We were borrowing £157 billion a year under Labour and now we are set to borrow £108 billion in the coming year—£118 billion if we remove the asset purchase facility transfer. So borrowing has come down.

Secondly, more than 1 million jobs have been created. Thirdly, we can look around the world and see that this country is seen to have got its act together and is making the big reforms we need to education, welfare and the like. That is why we are absolutely determined to win the global race and people see us as a country capable of winning that race.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Not that he needs any advice from me, but he should stick to his guns because he is on the right track. I find myself agreeing violently with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), that this is about earning. In particular, I congratulate the Chancellor on his policies on education and apprenticeships to get young people better educated and in work. May I bring to his attention the fact that I have just recruited a new apprentice for my parliamentary office from Magdalen college school in Brackley? Will he join me in urging all colleagues to look into the apprenticeship scheme and how it might help them in their work?

[Mr Osborne]

I thank my hon. Friend for her support and kind words. We are absolutely going to stick to this economic plan—that is what is taking Britain out of rescue into recovery. If we abandon that plan and if we listen to the advice of the Labour party—although the shadow Chancellor did not mention it in his statement, Labour’s plan is to borrow more—we would be back in intensive care. She is right also to highlight the success of apprenticeships, as there are over 1 million more of them. We are committing to the funding of apprenticeships in this programme. A significant part of my statement was also about school reform, and when people look at it they will see that it is one of the most important parts of the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

RBS: the world’s largest bail-out, under a Government who completely failed to regulate it. How dare the right hon. Gentleman have the audacity to come here and complain about the Royal Bank of Scotland? We are fixing the problems in the Royal Bank of Scotland. We are looking at the case for establishing a “bad bank”, which, as I said at the Mansion House, should have been done in 2008. We are going to fix the mess in the banking system that Labour left behind.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Does he believe that implementing some of its recommendations will help banks to lend? Will he urge the Leader of the House to allocate time for a debate on this subject?

[Mr Osborne]

We will have plenty of time to debate the recommendations of the parliamentary commission, which I think has done an absolutely excellent job for the House, by the way. We will shortly have the Report stage of the Banking Bill, at which the Government will say how we intend to respond to those recommendations. If there is more work to be done on the drafting of specific amendments, those amendments can be tabled in the House of Lords and they will of course come back to the House of Commons as well. The whole purpose of the parliamentary commission was to enable us to get on with this. If we had created a public inquiry, as Labour recommended, it would only just be getting going now. Instead, Parliament has done what it is supposed to do, which is to investigate a problem and provide recommendations, and we are going to debate those recommendations here.

Financial Transaction Tax and Economic and Monetary Union

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but when we have a chance to participate in and lead international gatherings, we must decide where our negotiating capital or authority can best be deployed. The Prime Minister decided, correctly in my view, to pursue tax transparency at international level, through our leadership of the G8 and in other forums. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is as fair-minded as he considers me to be, would be churlish not to acknowledge the considerable breakthrough achieved by the Prime Minister in recent months, and by the Chancellor before him in Mexico, in respect of tax transparency. I believe that that is an example of the palpable progress that even the Opposition should applaud.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

In the context of transparency, does the Financial Secretary agree that creating an unlevel playing field in which some countries participate and others do not, which is what this financial transaction tax will do, could fall foul of the second markets in financial instruments directive, which requires best execution in all transactions? In an essentially international if not global business like financial services, might not those wishing to conduct transactions on behalf of their customers struggle with the idea of using a jurisdiction that had imposed an unlevel financial transaction tax?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right. This runs contrary to the whole direction of the reform that we have been promoting and think it essential for the EU to promote, namely movement towards a single market in which operating across borders becomes progressively easier and more transparent. I do not think it sensible to do what the hon. Member for Nottingham East would prefer to do, which is make a global financial transaction tax a greater priority than what we are achieving in terms of tax policy, at a time when we are making great progress.

Nor would it be right to leave out of the motion the reference to the UK’s legal challenge to the current proposed FTT, which it is widely acknowledged would hit British pensioners—we know the Opposition have them in their sights at the moment—and which is the whole basis of this Committee’s scrutiny of the proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

I agree. It is not only the London economy that would be damaged; the whole European economy would be damaged, too. That cannot be in the interests of EU members, but members are, of course, sovereign and can make their own decisions, provided that that does not interfere with our competences and rights.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) says, “Ah, the Financial Secretary is against it all together!” However, the European Commission itself has done an assessment that shows how extraordinarily costly this will be in terms of jobs and revenues to the member states who introduce it.

[Greg Clark]

That is absolutely right, although one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the FTT proposal is that it has been frustrating trying to obtain an accurate view of its impact from the Commission. Not enough analysis has been conducted. We know that the original estimate of the impact was a reduction in EU GDP of 1.76% and a loss of half a million jobs across the EU. Mysteriously, those figures have changed, but we have had no rigorous explanation for that.

In the limited time available to us today, I should address the other documents that are the subject of this debate, in particular the one on economic and monetary union. Late last year, the European Commission published its blueprint for a deeper EMU, and the President of the European Commission provided a report called “Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union”. Those reports put forward ideas for possible steps to a more integrated euro area. They are of particular concern to the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and I am sure he will want to speak about the implications for the primacy of this House and this Parliament.

So far these are not formal proposals but contributions to a wider debate in Europe about what may be needed to bring long-term stability to the euro area. I am sure that further documents will be referred to the Committee and we will have the opportunity to debate them in this House, but I want to emphasise very clearly that the UK will not be part of these arrangements, and although leaders at the December 2012 European Council agreed on a more limited work programme than that set out in these reports, they do raise important questions that need to be addressed.

The European Council December 2012 conclusions were very clear that any new steps towards strengthening economic governance would need to be accompanied by further steps towards stronger legitimacy and accountability. The European Parliament has a role at the EU level as further integration of policy making and greater pooling of competences take place among the euro-area countries, but this does not mean the European Parliament has primacy over national Parliaments, whose role is absolutely essential and inviolate.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in this House on 12 December in his post-Council statement —and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I think—we believe that national Parliaments are closest to people across the EU and that is why they should be at the heart of providing democratic legitimacy within the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was so close to Labour Members of the European Parliament. I am not familiar with what they were thinking at that time, but on the Labour Benches here we are keen on the principle of an FTT and I have no idea why he is not. I do not understand why Government Members are taking such a stick-in-the-mud view of the issue when it is clear that some of the obstacles that are in the EU variant could be overcome if we engaged and took a leadership role. We have dealt with the stamp duty issue. There are ways of dealing with the extraterritorial and residence issue.

[Andrea Leadsom]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the impact on job losses and costs to savers and pensioners in this country if we were to adopt the financial transaction tax?

[Chris Leslie]

I do not think there would be any such impact if we designed the FTT correctly and implemented it in the best interests of the UK, and if we persuaded the Americans to do likewise. Not all financial transaction taxes are the same. Stamp duty is very different from the FTT proposed by the European Union. That is a very broad concept and we need to look at it in a proportionate and modest way. I know that the hon. Lady is familiar with what I am talking about. She should read the amendment. I do not understand why she objects to it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that if there is a financial transaction tax, that money has to come from somewhere. If it is not coming from savers and pensioners and from moving business overseas, where does he think that money is coming from?

[Chris Leslie]

The hon. Lady knows very well that millions and possibly billions of financial transactions take place every day of the week—almost every hour—and it is a question of whether there is a social benefit that we should look at as a recompense to society at large, which should not see those financial transactions as totally disconnected from our economy and our society. We know that excessive risk taking and many of the problems that arose from the attachment to the derivatives trade and others got us into the problems of the global financial crisis. Rather than turning its back on it and not engaging, as the Government are doing, the financial services industry should engage in that and think about the design. Let us get it right and do it on our terms, rather than waiting to play catch-up.