European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The Chancellor is being very candid. According to his recently published long-term economic analysis, the Government’s two scenarios would result in a hit to GDP, or a lowering of the growth rate, of between 3.4% and 6.4% if there is a deal, and of between 6.3% and 9% if there is no deal. Will he confirm that this is indeed the choice the UK are putting before Parliament?

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the analysis. These are not rates of GDP growth; this is an estimate of the relative size of the economy at a 15-year horizon under different scenarios. In all scenarios, we expect that GDP growth will recover and continue.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the Chancellor put on the record what he thinks the hits will be? He said in response to a Labour Member that there would be a lower growth rate. What are the percentage differences in the two scenarios—deal and no deal—versus staying in the EU?

[Mr Hammond]

I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I did not talk about a lower growth rate. I am talking about a smaller overall size of the economy. It is our central view that, once the economy has moved to a new equilibrium, growth will resume in all these scenarios and that our economy will go on getting larger.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

What are the numbers?

[Mr Hammond]

This is not an economic forecast. It is a modelling of five different scenarios. Our economic growth rate in 2033 will depend on a raft of other issues, not only on the outcome of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Next week, we will make one of the most significant decisions that most hon. Members will ever make in this House, and it will impact on current and future generations. So far, hon. Members have ensured that we approach the debate leading to that decision with the seriousness of tone that it warrants—indeed, I think we have seen some of the best of the House over the past few days—and we have to find a way through.

On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said:

“My final plea to the House is as follows. Now is the moment to tell each other the truth… No one is going to get everything they thought they would get. No one is going to receive all the things they were told they would receive. All of us are going to have to compromise, and we are going to have to find a way forward that a majority can agree upon.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 802.]

I fully concur with those sentiments, and that is what we are about in this coming period.

I wish to focus on four points—I recognise that a large number of Members wish to speak, so I will be as succinct as possible. My first point, on which I hope we can find widespread majority and common ground across the House, is that we must seek to prevent a no-deal situation occurring by either imposition or default. Secondly—and I say this in as straight a way as possible—it is increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister’s deal is neither politically nor economically acceptable, and neither is it capable of bringing the House or country together.

Thirdly, as the House looks for an alternative, Labour has proposed a plan that we believe could unite the country, by addressing the concerns raised in the referendum campaign while securing the benefits of a close and collaborative relationship with our European partners. That is what we are about. My fourth point is an expression of a worrying concern, given the current state of our economy, about the impact of a bad deal on our communities.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

As we know, next week the Government’s deal will go down in flames, whatever putative deal is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman will get nowhere, and the UK will look down the barrel of no deal or no Brexit. When looking down the barrel of no deal or no Brexit, will he also pick up a microphone, look at the camera and tell the people what he would choose: no deal, or no Brexit?

[John McDonnell]

I would choose what the House is seeking—in good will, I believe—which is a compromise that secures the will of the people while at the same time protecting jobs and the economy. [Interruption.] Government Members shout that that is the current deal, but at some stage in the next few days reality will dawn on people that it is highly unlikely that that deal will secure a majority position in the House. We have to be honest with each other and take this opportunity for an honest expression of views. Not only will the deal not secure a majority in this House, but it is certainly not bringing the country together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I rise to speak today on what is the United Kingdom’s 96th birthday. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland started 96 years ago. When I think back to John Major talking in the ’80s about 1,000 years of British history, I have longed to utter those words and make people realise that the UK is not as old as he thought.

On this 96th birthday of the United Kingdom, we are in what I would call a Laurel-and-Hardy situation with Brexit. It is clear that Brexit is crazy, silly, nuts, wacky, cuckoo, potty, daft, cracked, dippy, bonkers—the list goes on. In Gaelic, I could say that it is gòrach, faoin, amaideach, caoicheil, air bhoil—the list again goes on. We are seeing that the UK will struggle to see its 100th birthday as a result of this nonsense. As the Chancellor laid out in his speech earlier, Brexit will have opportunity costs. He gave us five scenarios, but we are down to two scenarios from the Government. The Prime Minister has given the UK a choice between a deal or no deal, leading to economic damage of between 3.4% and 6.4% of GDP or 6.3% to 9% of GDP respectively. Each percentage point of GDP equates to up to £26 billion. By way of contrast, the 2008 crash was a 2% event. Those percentage points mean a loss of jobs, wages, prosperity, housing, infrastructure, taxation for health and education funding and so on.

How does all that happen? Well, there are a few examples. For instance, Toyota takes 50 lorries a day across the channel to factories in Derbyshire, with a four-hour lead-in time. If there are snarl-ups at the border, that will not happen. Honda takes 200 lorries. It is no wonder that the Japanese Prime Minister, Japanese companies and Japanese diplomats here in the UK are concerned, and we should be worried, too. The situation will affect our lamb, shellfish, cattle and many of our other exports, and chemical companies, such as BASF in my constituency, are well aware of that. Some people suggest that we should use ports such as Zeebrugge rather than Calais, but that would take longer to do the same thing. The UK is already laggard in productivity, so to take longer to do the same thing will make matters worse.

Why are we in this situation? The Prime Minister made contradictory promises. She said, “We will be out of the customs union and the single market,” but she also said, “There will be no border in Ireland.” Something had to give and, as we know now from the loss of the DUP’s support, she reneged on those promises. She had to, because there was a catastrophe coming down the way. One of the funny things about the Brexiteers is that they all want Brexit, but they do not want it in March, because they know full well the damage that Brexit is about to do. While they want Brexit in their wild abstractions, they do not want it coming this March, because they know what Brexit will do. Brexit will be economically damaging to everybody in the United Kingdom, and as a result, it is a folly for us that we are stuck in the United Kingdom.

In this crazy fantasy, 96 years later, the Irish are delighted that they have left. For those who voted no in Scotland in 2014, there is an awakening going on, and that is without a campaign—incidentally, people can visit SNP.org/join if they want. People are seeing the two unions differently. One is a union of independent nations of Europe meeting as equals, and the UK now knows the muscle of independent Ireland and Varadkar, with 26 behind them in a regional trade agreement. Leaving that union is tearing up trade arrangements. By contrast, when Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, we will merely be completing devolution to move political powers from here to Edinburgh, closer to the people.

Had we left in 2014, this folly and nonsense of Brexit would not have happened. Brexit, in actual fact, overturns the will of the Scottish people. It does not respect Scotland or the result of the votes of the Scottish people. Brexit shows the epic misgovernance of England, so what chance is there for Scotland when England cannot govern itself well? The escaped Irish have belly laughs, and their biggest wind-up is to go on television at various points of crisis and tell the UK to stay calm. Back in Tipperary, Waterford and Galway they are laughing, because they know exactly what it means to tell London to stay calm. The UK has many problems, and they are of its own making. The UK has crashed the Rolls-Royce, and the Prime Minister is trying to tell us that the choice now is to go down the second-hand car shop to choose a second-hand car or a moped. It is an absolute mess.

David Schneider, the comedian, tweeted today that in 2016 the Brexiteers said “‘Take back control! Make Parliament sovereign again!’”, which he contrasted with Lord Digby Jones, who said on Twitter yesterday, “Beware the tyranny of Parliament!” As Laurel and Hardy said, what a fine mess they have got themselves into.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

I have just given some examples of how broken the UK social security system is. If the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that any devolved Government could address the mess of the social security system in the UK within weeks, he is kidding himself on.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is clearly unaware that there are 4,000 people, not 400, chasing rather than helping. I heard Gaelic mentioned today, and he should know that the word “Tory” comes from the Irish Gaelic “Air an Toir”—pursuers. That is what they are doing in the DWP—pursuing people mercilessly, rather than helping them, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members can read Hansard tomorrow and come to their own conclusions.

Scottish Conservatives were complaining earlier about office closures. I find that fascinating from a political party that has put a meat cleaver to the jobcentre network and a meat cleaver to HMRC offices across the UK. You really could not make it up.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely fascinating point about the Conservatives calling for the richest to relocate to avoid tax. Continuing that logic, they should say that those earning less than £33,000 in England should register in Scotland. We know that the many get the deal in Scotland, but they speak for the few, as ever.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend makes a fascinating observation, but I think he will be disappointed by the response from the Scottish Conservatives. It will not be on their crib sheet, so I am sure they will not agree.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, no, no. Bishop Auckland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar are both admirable places, but last time I looked neither was situated in the east midlands, to which this question is devoted.

Scottish Economy

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry]

I certainly do not support fracking. I do not believe that a country as rich in natural resources and renewable energy as we are—and indeed one with the oil and gas industry that we have at the moment—needs to go for fracking. I absolutely support the ban on fracking in Scotland. [Hon. Members: “There is no ban!”] There is a ban in Scotland. As to an effective ban, a court ruled in the past week that that is the case: fracking cannot go ahead in Scotland under the current situation.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Unfortunately I am a bit late to the debate, but I have been paying attention. I am amazed by the efforts of Conservative Members, in relation to thinking of Scotland as a country. They are the people who want to see Scotland as a region. [Interruption.] They should remember that the Norwegians have an oil fund, whereas they have squandered Scotland’s oil.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. He was not making an intervention, but engaging in a debate with the Opposition. He attended the debate very late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman spoke for 10 minutes; I cannot take an intervention from him.

SNP Members sat on their hands and abstained, despite talking in the debate about all the positive interventions that would come to Scotland as a result of Heathrow’s expansion.

It is good that some SNP MSPs can speak out against their party. My hon. Friends have quoted a report, “Scotland’s Economic Performance”, by a cross-party committee of the Scottish Parliament and supported by SNP MSPs, which says:

“Levels of GDP growth are marginal; productivity is low and wages are stagnant.”

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Customs and Borders

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Lady is exactly right. Where we currently have good free trading arrangements we should cherish them, because the truth is that it is getting harder to negotiate new trade deals. The politics of trade deals has become more complex, as communities across different countries become more worried about the losers and winners of big changes to trade arrangements. At a time when it could take very many years to negotiate new trade arrangements, if we pursue the idea of ripping up our existing ones before the conclusion of such negotiations it will be deeply damaging to many of our jobs and communities.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

In answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I am struggling to think of a country that we have a ro-ro ferry arrangement with that is not in the single market—which we are going to have very soon, if we follow his direction.

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately, I did not catch the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. May I ask him to repeat it?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I am struggling to think of a trading partner that we have, outside of the single market and customs union, that we have a ro-ro arrangement with, and I think that would be the answer to his question.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Not only that, but those other countries that we might seek to get alternative trade arrangements with are further away, and when it comes to manufacturing industry in particular, geography matters—gravity matters. The best opportunities and the greatest markets will be those that are closest, especially in a world of just-in-time production where you might need to get supplies very rapidly into your factories or into your retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: in the end, any agreement has obligations attached to it, as well as enforcement mechanisms.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will make this one of the final interventions. I want to deal with the objections that people have raised to a customs union, because it is important to respond to those.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am very grateful. To build on the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) made, a free trade agreement in this context is highly misleading. The UK would not have a free trade agreement, but a “less trade” agreement, and when we talk about free trade agreements with the rest of the world, we mean bits of trade agreements. Trade will not be as free as it currently is in the European Union.

[Yvette Cooper]

There is no doubt about that. If we have no customs union, there will be less free trade than we currently have, and that is where the manufacturing industry is at risk.

Manufacturing is very important in my constituency, and we are very proud of having Haribo there. I have been to visit, and I particularly enjoyed doing the quality-control checks on the Starmix—we made sure that they were particularly rigorous and tried many times to make sure that the Starmix was very top quality that day. The chief executive of Haribo said clearly to me:

“If a truck loaded with materials that we desperately need to make a product is held up or not released at border control for a day or two, the worst case scenario would be production grinding to a halt”.

That is the reality.

We know, too, that this issue is particularly important for the Northern Ireland border. Ministers have rightly said that there should be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic or between Northern Ireland and Britain. Parliament has a responsibility to make sure that that happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

In essence, not having a veto is not having control on the outcome. An agreement would be negotiated for us that we would either have to live with or reject. There is no sensible outcome we could live with over which we have no control.

It gets worse. Turkey can sign free trade agreements with other non-European Union countries only if she has the EU’s permission—we would have to get clarity on whether that would apply in this instance. I suspect Turkey only subjects herself to such a humiliating state of affairs because she continues to hold out the hope of becoming a full member of the European Union.

The state of affairs for Britain would be far worse, infinitely worse, than remaining a member state of the European Union, where we at least have a seat at the table when it comes to our trade deals.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered that Turkey might be staying in the customs union for economic advantage? Has he thought about the economics of the situation?

[Mr Clarke]

I do not believe that it is to our economic advantage. Turkey has long prized EU membership as a status symbol, but I do not believe the economics add up.

Those lobbying for a customs union know that staying in the customs union without a voice at the table would be worse than being a fully signed-up member, as was made more or less explicit by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) when he said that we would need to stay in the single market as well as the customs union, which goes a long way towards revealing the true motivation of many who make this argument—they see it as a stepping-stone to undoing the people’s vote to leave.

We need to remind ourselves of why the leave campaign lobbied to leave the customs union in the first place. The EU has been slow at negotiating trade deals on our behalf, not least because there are 28 members states on one side of the negotiating table. The EU’s trade talks with Japan have taken 61 months and are still awaiting ratification. By contrast, it took Switzerland 28 months to settle its deal with Japan. EU trade talks with the US have been ongoing for 64 months now, with no sign of progress, whereas the US managed to negotiate trade deals with Canada in 20 months, Australia in 14 months and South Korea in 13 months. At the time of the referendum, the EU had managed to negotiate trade agreements with only two of the UK’s 10 largest non-EU trading partners.

Not leaving the customs union would also fatally damage the prospects for the idea that, more than any other, has captured the imagination of the Teesside public since our vote to leave. A free port at Teesport, which is a project championed by Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and me, would be an enormous boost to local industry and provide a great incentive to reshore jobs to the South Tees mayoral development corporation site. That goes directly to the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made about north-east jobs. There has been enormous buy-in from local people and businesses to this idea, and people are genuinely excited about what it would mean. However, a free port will not be possible if we do not leave the customs union.

Some people try to maintain the argument that free ports are possible within the EU. The reality is that those zones that exist are glorified bonded warehouses—places where people can defer tax, duty and VAT. What Ben and I are saying is that within the Tees free port there will be the potential for significant tax and regulatory divergences, but that will be stymied if we remain in a customs union.

Outside a customs union there are other significant advantages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing the debate. I was one of the original signatories to the motion, but I had to leave that behind when I was asked to do this job of speaking for my party—I was wearing many hats at one stage.

I am sure that a lot of us have learned many things during this important debate, and that underlines what has been happening during the Brexit process. In the beginning, people did not know about or pay attention to the ins and outs. It was like a motorist who gets in a car and drives down the road happy and oblivious to the difference between a camshaft, a crankshaft and a tappet, or whatever components are in the engine, because the car works and is fine.

We now have to drill down and understand what happens at borders, which essentially do three things: tariffs, VAT checks and regulatory alignment. A customs union helps only the first of those, but it also goes some way towards helping with paperwork and rules of origin. For those who knock the idea of a customs union, I point out that there are 12 of them in the world, comprising 103 of the 193 United Nations countries. Customs unions are therefore more the norm than the abnorm.

If the UK insists on being out of the customs union and the single market, it will inevitably face barriers to trade. For those who do not believe that, a cursory glance at Google Earth will show them the barrier between Norway and Sweden, both of which are in the single market but only one of which is in the customs union. If they look at the south-east corner of the European Union between Turkey and Bulgaria, or between Turkey and Greece, they will see further barriers, because Turkey is in the customs union but not in the single market. We need to be in both.

Why are we trying to do this? We have seen analysis by the Scottish Government, which was dismissed as politicking; by the Treasury, which was dismissed as mere forecasts; and by the Irish Government, which was met with silence. Analysis shows that the damage to GDP will be 2%, 6% or 8%. To give an idea of what that means, the crash of 2008 was a 2% event for GDP. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that such things had not happened deliberately in the past. He was, I think, hinting that this is being done very deliberately—damage is being done to the UK economy in the full knowledge of what will happen.

The Prime Minister has not chosen the option of membership of the customs union and the single market outside the European Union, which would result in 2% damage. She has gone for the middle option of 6% damage, or three times the economic crash of 2008 over 12 years. We have to be absolutely certain that that is fully understood and communicated more widely among the public, because there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth when it happens. As someone who was once poor said, “I have tried poverty and it is not very good.”

The Brexiteer line that I heard from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was that we are not in control of our trade, but nobody, by definition, is in control of their trade, because they have to deal with another partner. We certainly will not be in control when 27 other countries put up barriers to our goods, and we will have a lot less control over our trade at that point.

The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made a number of excellent points. She talked about the idea of global Britain. May I let the House in on a secret? There is a thing called global Ireland, global Germany, global France, global Australia, global Argentina —everywhere, ladies and gentlemen, is global. On global Japan in particular, diplomats are going into offices explaining that they have put 40% of their investment into one basket in the EU, namely the UK, and they are very nervous indeed about what will happen to that investment. Outside the UK, global Japan has the biggest worry of all about exactly which direction the UK is taking.

In an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) gave the example of avionics and Specsavers. Who knew about these things? I knew about shellfish. People say that they want fantastic trade agreements with many other countries across the world, but lorries currently take shellfish from my constituency in the Hebrides to France or Spain on a journey that is uninterrupted by borders. If borders are put at the ro-ro facilities, the lorries’ journeys out and back will be delayed. We might get free trade with Paraguay, but there is no way that anyone could drive a heavy goods vehicle from the Outer Hebrides to Paraguay and back in a week. People sometimes lose sight of exactly what they are talking about. Trade does not happen on bits of paper. Trade happens because a person on my island, Donald Maclean, phones somebody in Spain and they make a deal between themselves. That is how trade works, but the Government are now putting themselves right in the middle of the trade that is happening between the Outer Hebrides and the continent of Europe, and that is going to be very damaging.

I get frustrated when I hear the Prime Minister, who has led the charge on this, saying that the European Court of Justice is not our court, but an external court. The ECJ is our court, your court and everybody else’s court. It is every European’s court, in fact. The idea that the UK and the EU are two separate entities is wrong as well. The UK is one of 28 members, and we have full access to the ECJ, just as everywhere else does.

We should also be mindful of the words of Simon Coveney, the Tánaiste and Irish Foreign Minister, because the moment might be approaching faster than we think. He said last week that if there was no agreement on the Irish border by June, everything could be off the table. The UK could crash out of the European Union a lot sooner than it thinks, because if the border issue is not sorted, no other issue will be sorted and there will be no deal. We know that the hard Brexiteers have abandoned the WTO idea because they have accepted a transition, but they might not get that transition. That could be a problem for them, but they have not yet woken up to it. Indeed, they might wake up to it too late, because the cliff edge is closer than we think. It has not been delayed as a result of the Prime Minister begging the European Union for two extra years but walking away with only 21 months.

It is absolutely incredible that the United Kingdom is taking the steps that it is taking. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has tried to shout to warn people and wake them up to the economic damage that is being done to the people who live in our islands. It will be worse for those in the north of England and in Scotland than it will be for those in London, but there is still going to be bad news for London. But I fear that people are not listening. They are on their ideological high horses, ignoring the facts that are staring them in the face. They are grabbing platitudes in the great hope that something will come up. The reality is that nothing is going to come up unless we climb down from a position of trying to square unsquareable circles. The UK is in a very difficult position of its own making. From my point of view as a Scottish National party member and a Scottish nationalist, we have to be referendum-ready in Scotland, because that is the only lifeboat I can see that could take us out of the economic calamity that the UK is about to force on itself.

RBS Closures (Argyll and Bute)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Royal Bank of Scotland was not aware before of the anger that this has caused across Scotland, it is very aware now.

It has been well documented that in my Argyll and Bute constituency, RBS plans to close three branches, in Campbeltown, Rothesay and Inveraray. I cannot begin to describe the sense of anger and the growing hostility in those towns, and right across my constituency, at the decision to close those local branches. My constituents are well aware of the hardship that the closures will cause across our communities. It is that anger and burning sense of injustice that has led so many of them to sign my parliamentary petition, which I launched just before Christmas. In Inveraray, Rothesay and Campbeltown, there is not one shop that has refused to take a petition to gather local signatures. I have the petitions here, and will be lodging them on the Floor of the House in the very near future. That is testament to the anger felt across Argyll and Bute at this callous closure plan.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It further underlined the annoyance to see the Prime Minister wash her hands of the situation at Prime Minister’s questions today, following a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Surely the chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland cannot be gliding on to BBC’s “Question Time” ignoring this issue? Ross McEwan cannot continue ignoring invites to meetings. These people, with their salaries, should show respect to the people and justify what they are doing. The UK Government should make sure that these people are not making monkeys of them, either, and should ensure that they go.

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. Like the Royal Bank of Scotland at the beginning, the UK Government have underestimated the sense of anger within our rural communities. We must keep up the pressure on the UK Government to act, and act swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I will not take an intervention, because I need to make some progress. Likewise, the Government do not manage the RBS Group; that is headed by its own board, which is responsible for strategic direction and management decisions. By its own volition, RBS has announced a number of branch closures in line with its commercial strategy. Obviously, banks will keep a number of factors in balance when they make these decisions: customer interests, market competition and other commercial considerations. The decisions are theirs to take, but they are also theirs to defend.

I say to the hon. Gentleman who secured the debate that by bringing the matter to the attention of the House again, he is doing a very good job of challenging the bank to justify the decisions it makes. It is for the bank to do that. Indeed, two RBS executives gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on this very matter last week, and they were pressed on their rationale. I have read the transcript, and they made it clear that customer behaviour is changing and bank branch networks logically are changing to reflect that.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[John Glen]

I am going to carry on, I am afraid, but I will address a number of points that flow from that.

The banking industry estimates that branch visits have fallen by roughly one third since 2011, and that more than one third of our adult population regularly uses mobile banking apps. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 63% of adults used the internet to bank in 2017. It is not the Government’s role to speak for RBS, but its own figures paint a similar picture of substantial change. Strikingly, I understand that RBS estimates that only 1% of RBS customers in Scotland use any of its branches on a weekly basis. I am aware that there are disputes over that, and I will address that point in a moment. The banking industry is changing to accommodate this shifting customer behaviour. However, the Government recognise that closures have an impact on customers who still need or want to bank in person. We have addressed that and ensured that measures are in place so that everyone can continue to access banking services.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The Minister said that only 1% of customers are accessing those branches. On an island of more than 1,000 people, that does not square with RBS telling us that only 13 people went into the branch. I do not need MI5 on the Isle of Barra to tell me who goes in the branch. We see exactly who goes in there. Twenty went in on the morning that RBS made that announcement. It got rid of a load of employees and hired people from an agency. Surely, as the largest shareholder, Government have to have some oversight over the cowboy behaviour that has been going on at the Royal Bank of Scotland—it is not Scotland any more.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I will not take any more. I will address how the bank can be challenged on this point in a moment.

I want to make four points in the remaining time I have. First, I want to discuss the Post Office. The Government has improved face-to-face banking services at the Post Office. With more than 11,600 Post Office branches in the UK, it offers a robust network to ensure that customers have a physical opportunity to bank locally if they choose. We should not forget that 99.7% of people live within three miles of their local post office, and 93% within one mile. We are going to experience a cultural change in the appetite and behaviours around using post offices.

Earlier last year, the UK’s banks and building societies and the Post Office reached a new commercial agreement that set the standard for the banking services available at the Post Office—balance inquiries, cash withdrawals, cash deposits and depositing cheques—to ensure that there would be a uniform level of service across the country. That agreement means that 99% of personal customers and 95% of business customers can do their day-to-day banking there.

I am aware that for the service to maximise its potential, the banks’ customers must know about it and know how to use it. That is why my predecessor wrote to the Post Office and to UK Finance last month; I am expecting a response today and I expect to see substantive commitments from all involved. We can all do our day-to-day banking at the Post Office and we should spread that message far and wide, especially to those of our constituents who may be worried about this issue.

Secondly, I will address a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members about the access to banking standard. As well as bolstering the Post Office, the Government support the industry’s access to banking standard that all major high street banks have agreed to. The standard commits banks to a number of outcomes when a branch closes: first, that they will give at least three months’ notice of a closure and explain their decision clearly; secondly, that they will consider what services can still be provided locally and communicate clearly with customers about alternative ways to bank; and, thirdly, that they will ensure that support is available for customers who need extra help. That support includes help for the digitally excluded who want to learn how to bank online, and guidance for those who regularly use branches and who need to be shown where and how to use the local post office that can help them.

I understand that RBS has undertaken substantive discussions with MPs and other local stakeholders on the future of banking in the communities affected by closures.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[John Glen]

I am not going to give way again. Where it has not done so, it is incumbent on RBS to engage with Members of Parliament to do just that. In excess of the notice required by the standard, RBS has given six months’ notice of these closures. The access to banking standard is the practical way to shape a bank’s approach to local areas, and I encourage every Member to ensure that their community is aware and able to engage with their bank directly. The Lending Standards Board monitors and enforces the access to banking standard. It will monitor how RBS and other banks fulfil their obligations to their customers. The board can be contacted by Members of Parliament if they have legitimate concerns about the way in which the process is being fulfilled. That new and additional scrutiny is a necessary and welcome addition to the way the standard works.

Thirdly, I will address the current account switch service. Should other banks offer more extensive local facilities, the Government have made it easier than ever before to switch to an alternative, using the current account switch service. The switch service is free to use. It comes with a guarantee to protect customers from financial loss if something goes wrong, and it redirects any payments mistakenly sent to the old account, providing further assurance for customers. That means that, more than ever, banks are incentivised to work hard to retain their existing customers and attract new ones.

Finally, a number of points have been made about access to cash. I understand that RBS is considering whether an additional mobile bank branch would be required in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. More widely, the Government continue to work with industry to secure the provision of free access to cash. In December, LINK—the organisation that runs the ATM network in the UK—committed to protecting all free-to-use ATMs that are a kilometre or more from the next nearest free-to-use ATM. This is a welcome strengthening of its financial inclusion programme.

I acknowledge that this is a very difficult matter, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House again. I commend all hon. Members who have contributed. I believe that I have set out clearly where there are some options to challenge the banks, if they feel justified in doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Banks and Communities

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield]

My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point about who the winners are in this situation. Certainly, we can identify the losers. The losers are the very community that we hold so dear; the losers are the high street—that geographical area where people gathered together and still try to. As my hon. Friend says, we have high streets that have been hollowed out. We need to find a way to stop this hollowing out and fracturing. The banks form a crucial, fundamental part of the foundation of maintaining our high streets, which we need to maintain our community and our society. We have reached a tipping point now—a point of no return—where the Government must step in with practical solutions to stop future closures and to address the fragmenting relationship with banks.

In 2015 we had the access to banking protocol, which spoke highly of financial inclusion and local engagement from big banks, but that fell short of any statutory protections. Members will be aware of the Griggs report the year following, which offered a series of constructive remarks and ideas to improve the settlement. Unfortunately, it addressed areas where the last bank had already left town. It does not, like my party's position, commit to a new legal protection that would enable banks to keep a presence in their local communities, which need them so much. Any new settlement should be constructively built in partnership with the banks and should engage with the shareholders of the banks who often engage with them most the local users.

What are the other answers? The Government have tried, and I suggest failed, over the past three years to try to displace some of the local bank branches with community post offices. The post office is another fundamental cornerstone of our high street and community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), a campaigner on this matter, will testify, that alternative provision works only if the post offices are not themselves being ripped from our high streets and from the communities they serve at a similar rate. Post offices rightly have a valued position on our high streets, but we cannot place the burden and responsibility of banking on a workforce who are already stretched.

The decision to merge retail banking into our post offices is not workable in the present form, and nor is it a popular alternative. Figures from Which? show that although the British public think most post offices are doing a great job, many do not even know of the alternative banking options available there. I also tentatively welcome services such as the mobile branch service operated and offered by RBS and the idea of shared buildings. My constituents do not believe that such solutions go far enough to ensure a trustworthy banking presence in East Lothian. They may fit an economic model, but they do so at the risk of continuing to fracture the trust. The single solution of a banking van might work in one place, but will not work in another. To apply it as an idea across the country is foolish and short-sighted.

The trust that people have is also influenced by the quality of protection that communities witness. Local bank staff, placed at the heart of communities, have a responsibility to be the last check and balance in terms of consumer protection. Speaking with campaign groups, including Which?, this week, I was heartened to hear of cases where people had gone into their local branch to withdraw large sums of money and the bank teller has said, “This is unusual for you. What is this about?” With that simple question they have prevented a retired couple from losing substantial sums of their life savings. That solid local relationship with trained members of staff in the local bank can go a long way to protect current accounts from bank fraud, and staff can also advise on and discuss people’s challenging financial problems.

When it comes to the assessment of community safety, I raise the question of the bank’s responsibility when a sophisticated thief dupes an individual out of money. Is it right that the bank can absolve itself of all responsibility simply because the crime was so complex and maliciously delivered that the victim genuinely believed they were dealing with their own bank branch? Such a crime might be a lot harder if the perpetrator first had to build a branch on a high street to defraud retired couples of their money.

The advent of online banking has been transformative, and it will continue. There is no argument or objection to that, but I am concerned that focus has shifted solely to it as the answer to the banking problems. It would be completely irresponsible to abandon the 20 million people who still depend on face-to-face bank services. Online banking, which will continue to grow, must be accessible. It is certainly not the fault of the big banks that Governments have failed to implement a broadband service fit for the 21st century. Nor is it the fault of the banking industry that nearly 2 million people across the UK experience internet speeds of less than 10 megabits per second, meaning that online banking will not work. But banks should be made to consider broadband blackspots and digital inclusion when they plan closures, as well as the impact of shifting consumer services from face-to-face banking to online services.

Four in 10 Scottish consumers experience service issues with their broadband. How does the banking industry expect a transition to take place? In 2015, 80% of my rural constituents were dissatisfied with their internet speeds, and yet banks in Tranent, Prestonpans and Gullane in my constituency have closed in the past three years. I am interested in the thoughts of my Scottish colleagues and others here on this matter. Should big banks be made to consider broadband speeds in any meaningful consultation on bank closures?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It would have been nice to have had a consultation before we heard that the bank was closing. The buccaneer spirit of the Royal Bank of Scotland is exemplified by the fact that it did not bother having a consultation.

[Martin Whitfield]

I will deal with the question of consultation in a few moments. I want to establish a basis for that with regard to the availability of physical money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I compliment the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on obtaining the debate. It was my privilege to accompany him to the Backbench Business Committee and I was delighted when permission to hold the debate was granted.

If anyone should be aware of how important banking is to people in their daily lives, it is the banks themselves. They know that people need banking services to get paid, pay their bills, save and, usually, buy a house. They know that keeping a pile of cash under the bed is not an option in our society, so they should recognise that it is their responsibility to ensure that rural communities in particular have reasonable access to banking services. Unfortunately, as a Member who represents a largely rural constituency, I have to tell the House that many rural communities are losing that access and their connection with banking.

I am going say something now that might be seen as something of an article of apostasy in my party, because I am going to agree with the Scottish National party council leader in Stirling. He wrote to me just before Christmas making some valuable points that I can only agree with. In fact, I think I may have said them first, which justifies me in agreeing with him. He makes the point in his letter about the Royal Bank of Scotland closing its Bannockburn branch, which means there will be no banks at all there. I want to use this opportunity to commend the people of Bannockburn ward, more than 2,000 of whom signed a petition asking the Royal Bank of Scotland to review its decision. I want to make a point that is also made by the leader of Stirling council:

“This closure will have a disproportionate impact on some of our most vulnerable citizens”—

as was mentioned earlier—

“within the Bannockburn and Eastern Villages area with many reliant on high street banking.”

The letter continues:

“I have been approached by concerned constituents many who are elderly and neither have the access or ability to engage with on-line banking. Many are distrustful and indeed fearful of using the internet for such transactions.”

That point was also made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. I have also been approached by hundreds of my constituents—I do not exaggerate—who tell me that it is a fundamental act of injustice to remove the banking services from the communities that, as he said, need them most.

In my constituency, RBS plans to close three branches—in Dunblane, Bannockburn, and Bridge of Allan—leaving one RBS branch in the entire constituency. By the way, that branch is in the centre of Stirling and access to it is impossible for anyone with any form of mobility challenge. It is not the best locality—either for car parking or for getting to—for the single remaining RBS bank in my constituency. That is bad news for small businesses, which benefit from having a local branch, as the hon. Member for East Lothian explained well. It is bad news for the staff who work in the branches, and for elderly people and people who are less well off, who are less able to make the journey to a branch several towns away.

I should make it clear that the Royal Bank of Scotland is not the only offender. I should also make it clear that I used to work for RBS, when I was a callow youth, on leaving school.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Last week.

[Stephen Kerr]

Thank you very much. The hon. Gentleman has become my hon. Friend suddenly.

I have a fondness and affection for the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is a grand old Scottish institution, which has been ruined by the mismanagement of the directors of a decade ago.

I ask the Minister to look at what the banks propose. They are saying, “We are going to close the branch. Go to the post office.” That is not practical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

What we see here is a bank that has acted in a buccaneering way, with no impact assessment at all, no community responsibility and no thought of how it might affect communities. The community I am talking about is an island community, and one of their first thoughts was of the Cashline machine. Islanders on the island of Barra have to take a five-hour ferry to Oban and then either take a few hours’ drive to Gairloch or another ferry to Tobermory on the island of Mull to access a Cashline machine. Their next thought was, of course, going to South Uist, which would involve at best a half-day trip at a cost of about £20 or £30 return to access maybe £50 from the Cashline machine.

Luckily, on day one RBS, after telling us it had done thorough diligence and been very thoughtful, had to reverse its position after a few tweets about what it was doing on the Cashline machine—so little was the thought that RBS had put into the buccaneering, high-handed, reckless hatchet-man job. It does not care about the communities it has served for so long, and it is showing them no loyalty whatsoever. As a customer of RBS—the only bank on the island of Barra—it is absolutely sickening to find that it is turning its back and walking away, and that it does not care.

I argue that the way RBS is going about this at the moment is such that the patriotic move would be to move money out of the Royal Bank. It can drop the name “Scotland” for the way it is treating people all over rural Scotland at the moment. Whether in East Lothian, Stirling, Inveraray or even Wales, the way RBS is going about this is in no way decent, moral or nice. It is a bunch of people on corporate welfare, with £16 million in bonuses a year. Now, £16 million in bonuses a year would pay for the salaries of the staff at the branch in Castlebay, Barra, for 266 years. That is the level of greed we see from those people—it is not just greed, but cowardice and irresponsibility.

I invited Ross McEwan to come to Barra, and I got a letter from Les Matheson, which said:

“Thank you for inviting Ross McEwan and Hollie Voyce to visit the Isle of Barra. As the CEO for Personal and Business Banking I regularly visit our branches across Scotland to meet customers and staff, and I can confirm I will be visiting Castlebay in the New Year.”

He came in on a flight in the morning and went in the afternoon. How do I know? Because I happened to visit the branch with a banking issue on Friday afternoon, to be told by the staff, “Did you know you missed Les Matheson coming to Barra?” It was an act of utter cowardice. None of them have yet come to face the community at all.

Before I come to the end of my speech, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing the debate and say to him, “Very well done indeed.” I was trying to do the same myself. I hope that some of us will give thought to demonstrations outside the headquarters of the Royal Bank of Scotland if it continues in this way. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) pointed out that George Osborne, when he was Chancellor, sought consent for Stephen Hester’s appointment. I have to ask the Minister: this time, with the devastating blows that are hitting Conservative, Labour, Scottish National party, Liberal and everyone else’s constituencies, was consent sought?

I know the Minister is a principled man. He is in a new job, and such a job in the Treasury is a great test of principles. We will have to see who is in charge here. Is the bank owned by the Government, or do the bankers own the Government? Who is telling who where to jump? Who is pulling the strings? What is happening? The Government cannot play Pontius Pilate. With the Bannockburn closure, I am left to think that we will have to send the Royal Bank and its greedy corporate welfare home to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate on a topic that is clearly of such central importance to many Members. I also congratulate him on his speech, which I mean not just with the usual courtesy. I thought it was an excellent introduction and a fair assessment of the situation the UK faces, and particularly Scotland.

This debate is the first in which I face the new City Minister. I warmly welcome him to his new role. He will find the shadow Treasury team always available with reasonable suggestions for a fairer and more prosperous Britain. I look forward to spending a great deal of time with him on statutory instrument Committees over the next few years.

I often think that banks have one thing in common with those of us who are politicians—with Members of Parliament in this place. People often say that they are not keen on politicians but that they feel quite affectionate towards their local MP. Similarly, many people do not feel particularly affectionate towards the banks, but do have quite a lot of regard for their local branch. We can see in this debate the strength of feeling that changes to the high street banking presence have generated.

The British banking industry is vital to our national economic infrastructure and is a sector that we should be able to be proud of. It is clearly important because of the revenue that it generates for the Treasury. UK- domiciled banks contributed an estimated £35 billion in tax in 2017 and they also employ 1.5% of the entire UK workforce.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Well done—perfect pronunciation as well. The UK has a problem with productivity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this move means that people will have to spend many hours moving about the country to get to the banks, which were much closer at one time, not on their core activity? It is a destroyer of productivity. On that basis alone, the UK Government should call them to heel.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That is a very reasonable point. Hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) have shared stories of the round trips, the incredible journeys, that people have to make because of the lack of a banking presence locally. I thought that my constituency was quite badly affected, but the stories that I have heard today show just how widespread the problem has been.

The lending that banks provide is essential to financing growth in the economy, for both individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises. Many British people who are in credit benefit from free banking and 24/7 access to their money through a variety of channels and new technologies. However—and it is a big however—the memory of the British public is not so short that they do not recall the immense damage wrought on the country in 2008 by the financial crisis, which started in the banking sector. We should not underestimate the profound impact that those events have had on public trust in both retail and business banking.

Bailing out the banks, as the Government of the time did, was, without question, the right move. I often say that it would be more accurate to describe that as the Government bailing out the public from the consequences of what the banks had done, rather than straightforwardly bailing out the banks. However, those actions, which in some cases brought establishments into public ownership, clearly reiterated that the relationship between the banks and the public should be reciprocal. The fact that taxpayers’ money was made available to banks reinforces that financial institutions are of central importance to our economy’s wellbeing.

Banking is unlike other industries, in that dealing with people’s money gives banks a unique and special responsibility. That brings with it, rightly, higher expectations about conduct, culture and putting the customer first. As a country, we have in the past 10 years legislated for a considerable increase in bank regulation, much of which, we hope, will prevent us from ever having to witness events like those of 2008 again. I recognise that in tandem with that many banks have made efforts to bring about cultural change internally, to overhaul systems and processes and to show that they take their role in the economy seriously.

However, there is clearly still so much to be done in rebuilding the relationship between the banking sector and the public. A YouGov study released in March 2017 showed that just 36% of British consumers trust banks to work in their customers’ best interests. Last year, I was at Mansion House for one of the industry body dinners, where the chief executive of one of the big banking representatives said that its research showed that just 13% of SMEs felt that they could trust their bank to do the right thing for their business. That is no good for the banks or for us as politicians and it is certainly no good for the businesses that feel that way.

Now is the time for banks to demonstrate that they have learned from the past and to recompense for past failings. This is not just about a banking presence on the high street. The historic events involving things such as RBS’s Global Restructuring Group are a case in point. Serious mistakes, errors of judgment and, we have to say, in some cases, criminal activity took place, with appalling consequences for some businesses in this country. It is not enough that the requisite cultural change has taken place to prevent such events from happening again; rather, the banks must show that every effort has been made to rectify that behaviour, show that complaints are taken seriously and, crucially, show that changes are in place to ensure that customers can never again be exploited in that way.

That underpinned Labour’s decision to table an amendment to the Finance Bill calling for a reversal of reductions in the bank levy. The cut in the bank levy is in effect a tax giveaway to the big banks and is worth £1 billion in 2018 alone. Given that that comes at the same time as the Government’s baffling decision to sell off RBS shares at a huge loss just as the bank returns to profitability and after the taxpayer has paid the fines for past behaviour—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Given the state of flux in UK politics, it is perfectly possible that within a year the hon. Gentleman could be sitting in the Minister’s seat. What would he do about all these branch closures if he were?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

First, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that such a promotion might be possible. It is not something we can take for granted, but I will specifically address the RBS branch closures later in my speech. I want to make the point at this stage that rightly, and for a variety of reasons, the British public are questioning the return that they have got for their investment in the banking sector.

Much of this debate has been about branch closures. I think that everyone in the debate has admitted that we are in a time when the banking sector is undergoing considerable technological change. The exciting bit of that is the potential to deploy some of the advances for the benefit of those people who have had trouble interacting with the traditional banking system. It always confounds me that this country can play host to the most successful and most global financial sector in the world, yet at the same time we have such high levels of financial exclusion. More than 1.5 million people remain entirely unbanked. In many cases, how the traditional banking system has worked has compounded the problems rather than seeking to solve them.

I want to see new technology give us new ways to address financial exclusion, rather than being used as an excuse to push more people towards the excluded position. There is no doubt that the reports that the sector itself is looking into show how low-cost, flexible and accessible services can be provided to people who are excluded. Doreming, for example, allows individuals to shop without access to a bank account. We want to work with both the banking sector and regulators to ensure that such initiatives can access a level playing field, with the right safeguards for those who use them. When I talk to people in the financial sector, they show huge enthusiasm and passion for using their expertise to make the sector world leading and to address some of these issues. However, 10 years on from the financial crisis, rather than having that moment of reflection and seeing what new opportunities we could use to tackle financial exclusion, debates such as this, about the sense that banking is being removed from more and more people, seem to dominate.

It is crucial that we use technology to benefit all consumers, rather than creating a pared down, automated banking sector that leaves vulnerable customers without the support they need or that gives us a situation akin to what we see in the energy market, where a small group of savvy consumers get quite good deals, but at the cost of a larger group of people subsidising them and getting quite a poor deal.

Specifically on branch closures, there is no doubt that the branch network has been shrinking at an accelerating rate. In December 2016, Which? reported that more than 1,000 branches of major banks had closed between January 2015 and January 2017, with nearly 500 more set to be axed in 2017. We have seen from recent announcements by the Yorkshire Building Society and, more dramatically, by RBS, which plans to close 259 branches, just how much that is accelerating. As I said, this has affected my own constituency: Mossley, Stalybridge and Hyde have all seen branch closures. But frankly, the scale of some of the stories that hon. Members have shared today has been quite shocking. I want to say clearly that we believe the scale of the closures is disproportionate and unwarranted and should be reconsidered. In 2015, the big four high street banks made profits of more than £11 billion from their retail businesses, which own and operate the high street networks.

Research conducted by the Social Market Foundation in 2016 found that a strong consumer appetite remains for a physical presence when banking. Nearly two thirds of consumers would prefer to talk to someone face to face when making a big decision, and nearly half of those who had visited a branch in the previous 12 months said that that was for reassurance and support with more complicated transactions. The report found that 11% of the population—nearly 7 million people—use no other banking service than their local high street branch and that those people are overwhelmingly older and less affluent. Another study found that lending to small businesses in the postcode area actually fell following a local branch closure—that has to be of concern.

If you bear with me, Mr Gapes, I will conclude in a moment, but I want to say specifically that Labour’s answer to this problem is to propose a change in the law regulating banks, so that no closure can take place without appropriate local consultation—not a tick-box exercise—and without Financial Conduct Authority approval. A future Labour Government would obligate banks to undertake a consultation with all customers and to ensure they involve representatives of the relevant local council. The branch would be mandated to publish details of the reason for closure and include the relevant financial calculations showing the revenues and costs of each branch affected. The share of central costs such as accounting systems, IT, cyber-security and personnel allocated would have to be separately identified, especially as many of these costs are relatively fixed and are not proportionate to the number of branches in the network.

I thought the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is absolutely the right one and I have considered it for some time, that is, how, when branches leave the high street, the sector can come together to provide a joint solution. Those of us who use online banking recognise that there will parts of our lives in the future when we might no longer be able to do that—whether because of dementia or Alzheimer’s—and we need a solution.

In conclusion, Britain has a world-leading and robust banking system, but the banks must work with all of us, as policy makers, to tackle problems such as the lack of investment in this country and financial exclusion, and crucially to make sure that we move away from a country mired in personal debt to one with robust savings. Only when they are able to do that and show that their branch networks are part of that, will they be able to restore some of the faith that was lost in the sector 10 years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. If I am going to get through and give some detail, I need to press on. The point I am making is that, in a number of cases, alternatives are available. I want to make that clear—it needs to be made clear by us to our constituents.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and another hon. Member made a constructive suggestion about shared premises. That is obviously a decision for individual banks to consider, but through the office that I hold I would encourage the industry to think creatively about how banks can continue to serve their customers and minimise the impact of bank closures. Those are certainly conversations that I will take forward in my engagement with the industry.

Let me get back to the script, as it were, and try to make some progress so that I can address some of the issues that have been raised.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Before the Minister goes on, will he give way?

[John Glen]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I realise that his constituency is perhaps unique in the United Kingdom, and I acknowledge that those alternatives are not going to be available in every circumstance, but that was not my purpose in making that point. What I am trying to say is that there are alternatives and we should be talking about them.

The responsibility of banks is to consider the impact of closures on a community and to mitigate that wherever possible, but as we have heard today, and as the title of the debate suggests, banks are much more than just bricks and mortar. Their contribution to our economies and communities does and should go much wider: providing basic bank accounts to those who need them; providing the mortgages that help young people to get their first step on the housing ladder; and offering financial education.

I will now set out some of the ways in which banks are developing and evolving. Like all businesses, they must adapt to changing customer behaviour. The industry estimates that branch visits have fallen by roughly a third since 2011, just seven years ago. Three times out of five, when customers need to make a payment or otherwise interact with their current account, they use a mobile to do it. It is easier and quicker than it has ever been before to manage our money in that way. We are much less likely to use a physical branch on a regular basis, and that has driven some of these decisions. The banks’ branch networks are changing to reflect that, and I suspect that trend will continue.

Earlier this year, we saw the implementation of open banking, a new initiative that will transform how we are able to manage our finances, unlocking new opportunities for businesses and consumers. Good-quality broadband is important to ensure that these innovations do not leave anyone behind. That is why the Government are taking action to support access to these new digital services. The new universal service obligation on high-speed broadband will give everyone in the UK access to speeds of at least 10 megabits per second by 2020, which should play a big role in enabling some more of these services.

We are supporting customers who still need or want to bank in person. The Government support the industry’s access to banking standard, which commits to providing a minimum of three months’ notice. Some banks are giving longer periods—I believe that RBS was giving six months’ notice of closures in December. I note the observations of some Members on the inadequacy of that process, to which the banks will need to respond, but there is a practical way that we can shape the banks’ approach in a local area. The access to banking standard is overseen by the independent Lending Standards Board. It will monitor how banks, including RBS, fulfil their obligations to their customers under the standard, and it is responsible for enforcement.

The Government have supported improved face-to-face banking services at the post office, which is a critical element. The post office network is in good health, and the number of branches grew significantly in 2017 for the second year running. As a courtesy, I need to make way for the hon. Member for East Lothian to respond to the debate.

RBS Rural Branch Closures

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I know that many people want to intervene, but I will try to make some progress because of the time. I will take some interventions later.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Just before my right hon. Friend makes some progress, will he give way?

[Ian Blackford]

Nice try. Having a bank on the high street that collects and issues cash and provides other banking services is instrumental to the economic wellbeing of all our communities. Individuals and businesses rely on the access in person to banking services. Why did we save RBS, if there is no recognition that there is a liability on the bank to serve its customers and communities? Customers who have been loyal to RBS for generations find branches being closed on them. That is happening to people such as Cyril French, who lives in Plockton and is a customer of RBS at the Kyle branch. Cyril is 87 and has Alzheimer’s. The staff at the RBS branch are of enormous assistance to him when he goes on his weekly visit to the branch. What is Cyril to do if the bank closes? The next nearest RBS branch would be in Portree on the Isle of Skye, more than 40 miles away. On highland roads, this would take more than an hour, and he would have to be taken there either by family members or by his carer. Is that what Cyril should have to endure to visit a local bank?

Let us think about the local businesses that rely on the bank for depositing and collecting cash. Where are they to go? Let us take businesses such as the thriving Eilean Donan Castle in Lochalsh, which uses the Kyle branch. It is 43 miles from the next nearest RBS branch in Portree. Eilean Donan Castle is a thriving tourist destination, with over 540,000 visitors a year. It deposits millions of pounds of cash a year at the Kyle branch. Its insurance policy demands that it has as many as three staff members to take the cash to the bank. The impact on it of their having to drive to Portree rather than Kyle would be considerable in terms of time and staff resource.

When customers visit their local branch, they will often do other shopping, go for a coffee and such like. The closure of the last branch in Beauly in my constituency will drive valuable business away from the town. Personal customers and businesses will go to Dingwall or Inverness and will more than likely take their other business with them to these places. Closing the last bank in town has a similar effect to the removal of services such as local schools, and it undermines the sustainability of our communities.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the record? He said earlier that the UK led on the 0.7% target, but the UK was 40 or 45 years late. The 0.7% target was agreed in 1970, and the UK reached it decades behind the Scandinavians. I do not see that as leadership. Does he want to come back on that?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with such a narrow, partisan comment. Britain was the first G8 country to stand by its commitment to the poorest people in the world, and we are very proud that it was this Government who did it.

The highly respected Africa Progress Panel, in a recent study on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, made it clear that stolen funds and stolen taxes cost that country £1.5 billion, which is more than it spends on health and education. It is a deep irony that some of the world’s poorest people live on top of some of the richest real estate, as is clear in the DRC. Credible World Bank studies make it clear that the money stolen from the people of Africa through unpaid taxes or concealment dwarfs all the foreign direct investment and international development money that flows into Africa each year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that, as I, too, have constituents who are exploited by organisations such as BrightHouse. It is not a company that anyone reputable should be investing in.

It is not that difficult for people to pay the tax that they owe; it is not that difficult to say to a financial adviser—this is for those who have bags of cash—“I would like my money to grow, but I wouldn’t like it to grow by avoiding the tax that I owe.” It would be easy for people to say that. It is clear that some people lack a moral compass. Where they are taking decisions to engage in aggressive tax avoidance, the Government must legislate so that they can no longer do so—to provide that moral compass for people and make sure that the tax is paid when it is owed. We must have the best possible tax rules in place. We must simplify the tax code. We must crack down on evasion, and we must legislate to reduce avoidance. The Government are in an untenable position: they cannot continue to implement austerity while leaving a tax gap.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

We note that many of the tax avoiders do not avoid using our roads, our schools and our hospitals, and they certainly do not avoid using the police to look after their lumps of money, here, there and everywhere.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend from the Western Isles. People, however much they are earning and however much tax they are paying, are using public services. Our party aspires to have brilliant public services. We aspire to have people working in our public services who are paid a reasonable amount and do not have to face a pay cap. The only way we can provide the public services and benefits system we want is by having a system where people pay the tax they owe. We continue to call for this to be devolved to Scotland because we think we would take better decisions. In the absence of devolution, we would like the UK Government to take actual action, rather than just saying, “Look how great we are.”

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I was referring to my earlier intervention, when there was some confusion; the point of substance I was trying to get at was the difference in the tax gap. The precise figure for the tax gap is now 6%, and it was 8% under Labour. The difference in annual terms is £11.8 billion. That is incredibly important, as the newspapers are dominated by all the coverage of the Paradise papers, and the impression that gives the public is that multinational companies are running the rule over us and getting away without paying their fair share of tax, and that we are failing to deal with that. In fact, all the statistics show significant improvement under this Government in closing the tax gap and bringing forward measures to deal with avoidance and evasion.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) mentioned, one important issue is property. My experience, before I came to the House, was in property, as I ran a business helping first-time buyers. One of the great grievances felt by first-time buyers is the sheer quantity of money that has come into the property market, particularly in London. That money is driving up prices and making property less accessible to local people who want to get on the ladder. We should remember that we have brought in two important measures to deal with that. Until April 2015, foreign nationals did not pay capital gains tax when they sold a property in the UK. We closed that loophole in April 2015.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Is not one of the greatest problems of the housing crisis described by the hon. Gentleman the inequality in the UK, where the 100 richest individuals have the same wealth as the bottom 19 million? Indeed, globally, the 85 wealthiest people in the world have the same wealth as 3.5 billion people.

Devolved Powers in Scotland

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of devolved powers in Scotland.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to lead my first debate as a Member of Parliament.

Twenty years ago, I was in the minority. At the referendum in 1997, I campaigned against the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, not from party loyalty but from the starting point that any dilution of the Union could lead to its ending. I urged the people of Scotland to think twice and vote no. They did not; instead, they voted yes to a future with a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh.

However, I now realise that I was wrong. With the zeal of the convert, I have trodden my own road to Damascus and now I stand here today to extol the virtues of the Scottish Parliament and devolution. The Scottish Parliament has helped and is helping to create a better Scotland, and a more comfortable and confident Union, too; but more than that, I firmly believe that devolution is a principle worth arguing for. I am not talking about devolution in the sense of the establishment of a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly, but about the concept of devolution. It is core to my credo that politics should be and is local. It is personal to communities that decisions that impact on people’s lives should be made as near to them as possible. Edinburgh is not the end of the road; Holyrood should just be the beginning. Politics should be local and we should seek to localise decision making.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an hour-long debate. Lots of Back Benchers have put in to speak. The time limit is already looking like it will be three minutes; that time limit will go down if there are interventions. I say now that if a Member intervenes, they will not catch my eye to be called to make a speech.

[Stephen Kerr]

I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he might know, we have a problem on the west coast of Scotland, because we need fishermen from non-European economic area countries. Westminster is stopping that, in contrast to Switzerland, for example, where half the visas are controlled by Bern and the other half by the 26 cantons. Does he not think that it is time for Westminster to loosen its iron grip and allow fishing boats on the west of Scotland, and indeed in Northern Ireland, to fish?

[Stephen Kerr]

I do not necessarily recognise the nature of the problem that the hon. Gentleman is describing and I will come on to talk about the relationship that should exist between the Parliaments of this island.

As I was saying, Edinburgh is not the end of the road; Holyrood should just be the beginning. Politics, indeed, should be local. However, that is not Scotland’s story, nor has it been for the last 20 years of our Scottish Parliament. Instead of treating devolution as a process of bringing power to the people, first the Scottish Executive and then the Scottish Government have consolidated power in their offices in Edinburgh.

There has been a power grab in Scotland, sucking power from communities and taking power from the many into the hands of the few. Decisions taken around the Cabinet table in Bute House are remote and removed from the daily lives of the people of Scotland. They often run roughshod over the views of the public, and are apparently unheeding to and uncaring about the difficulties that communities face.

I am, however, full of hope that that situation can be addressed by the simple adoption of the principles of devolution by the Scottish Nationalist Government in Edinburgh. Since the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, we now have a powerhouse Parliament. It should not be forgotten that it was a Conservative Government who delivered those powers, in fulfilment of the vow made by David Cameron and, as Scottish Conservatives, we are proud to have done that. It is David Cameron’s proud legacy. Powers over equalities, gaming machines, income tax, railway policing, welfare, quarrying, air passenger duty, consumer advocacy and advice, the Crown Estate, elections and employment programmes—all these are in addition to the powers of general competence that the Scottish Government already enjoy, and there are more powers on their way.

The powers at the disposal of the Scottish Parliament have the potential to make a real difference to the lives of the people of Scotland. The Scottish Parliament can develop the economy, create specific help for people who need welfare and choose to vary taxation. I am by no means a fan of the idea of raising taxes, but I believe that services must be paid for and it should be for local councils and the Scottish Government to set an appropriate level of tax to pay for those services. With all those powers and the ability to tax and borrow more than ever before, the Scottish Parliament is well placed to get to work to solve our country’s problems and to work for Scotland’s betterment. What a shame that we still have so much confusion and grievance being shown.

Let me give an example of that. One of the Members of the Scottish Parliament made a statement just last month calling on Westminster to do something about the number of fixed odds betting machines, with the grievance about the lack of power hanging in the air, but of course that power was devolved in May 2016. It is possible that that statement was a simple mistake brought about by the confusing nature of the legislation, but it also misled members of the public about who is responsible. Instead of using such an important issue as a political ping-pong ball batted over Hadrian’s Wall, would it not be better if we approached such issues as a way of creating partnerships between different levels of Government, in order to achieve something?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

I am closing. With an approach that respects the motives of politicians from all along the political spectrum and from different levels of government, the people of Scotland would be better served. Our Scottish Government—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Kerr]

I am going to close. Our Scottish Government have a wide range of powers that they can use for the good of Scotland—more powers delivered by a Conservative Government. Devolution, however, should be a process and the Scottish people are best served when decisions are made closest to where they live. We must push for more power to be delivered to town halls across Scotland. Clarity over where power sits and honesty about that is essential. Politicians should be problem solvers, working across government levels to achieve for their constituents, rather than throwing their hands up in the air and decrying their lack of power.

Throughout all this is my fundamental belief that by working together we can achieve so much more for Scotland. We need to stop arguing—[Interruption.] Sorry, I correct myself: we need to keep arguing—[Laughter]—about policy and ideas. That is part of our nature as Scots. If we get away from the grievances and use the powers of devolution, we can all be winners. That is the promise of the use of power by government, whether local, devolved or national. Scotland is a land with two Parliaments, but it is one land and it deserves to be governed not in conflict but in partnership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for bringing this incredibly important debate to Westminster Hall, and to you, Mr Hollobone, for kindly allowing me to speak.

In my constituency of Angus, one of the biggest challenges is delivering effective and efficient healthcare in such a rural community. While the Scottish Parliament should in theory have the ability to better understand local needs, with this SNP Government, that unfortunately applies only to the central belt. For example, in my home town of Brechin—part of it falls into the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland—the health centre was staffed by six full-time GPs back in 2007. After 10 years of an SNP Government, that service has halved. In addition to the difficulty now faced by residents in simply securing a GP appointment—never mind continuity with the same GP—other services that should be delivered locally to reduce demand on Dundee’s A&E department are being withdrawn or reviewed with no guarantees about their replacement.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirstene Hair]

No, I am going to make some progress. Speaking on behalf of my constituents, I say quite simply that we are fed up of being hoodwinked by this SNP Government. They should stop pulling the wool over our eyes. We deserve honesty, clarity and an open dialogue on such vital services—not back-room discussions that the service users have no ability to influence effectively. As a result of the fall in the number of doctors, out-of-hours care services that should be delivered in the community have all but disappeared. Rural residents are being forced to travel up to 40 miles to Dundee or wait until the daytime services re-open.

It is not just general practice that has been badly hit by the SNP’s mismanagement of Scotland’s NHS; every aspect of healthcare is being threatened by a Government set on centralisation. Whether it is the sham consultation on the Mulberry mental health unit—the SNP MSP who claims to be fighting the case refused to turn up to the regional NHS meeting where that exact issue was at the top of the agenda—or whether it is the closure of Brechin Infirmary—

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for securing this debate. To have power and not use it is a crime. For a Government to have power and to let it lie in abeyance for so long is to mistrust and ill-serve the people who voted for them.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Power unused is the approach of the Labour party in Scotland, which sent billions of pounds back to Westminster. They had money, and they did not use it for the good of Scotland. They handed it back.

[Martin Whitfield]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I thank him for the extra time. Devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 created the Parliament that sat on 12 May 1999. The first Act passed was the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999, and it is interesting that we still talk about the need and desires for mental health services to this day.

From the formation of the Scottish Parliament we are now in a position where in a recent poll, 19% of people in Scotland seemed to indicate that they want devolved powers returned to Westminster. That is an appalling state of affairs. After this length of time, instead of an increasing number finding confidence and security in our Parliament in Scotland, one fifth of the population wants to go back to what they had.

I want to look at the powers in relation to one industry that concerns my constituency greatly, which is timber. Businesses north of the border can draw down from the apprenticeship levy if and only if they have an approved training provider. Businesses south of the border can draw down for the individual apprentices they have. In my constituency, we have a forestry business that can produce 10 million trees a year, but the number of apprentices within the industry is so small that there is no provider, so the businesses cannot draw down on the levy and they get no financial support.

Other industries in my constituency have apprenticeships that cross the border. The nuclear power station wants to send its apprentices around the whole fleet, and that causes problems, because it can draw down on the apprenticeship levy south of the border, but not north of the border. This debate is very timely, and the discussion needs to be across the border so as to facilitate the best interests of those in Scotland and of the United Kingdom and its economy across the board. Maybe it is time we stop screaming and shouting at each other and sit down and talk and act in the best interests of both Scotland and the United Kingdom.