National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. The pleasure is allayed slightly by the fact that I cannot hope to rise to the excellence of her speech, which I hope the Minister observed very carefully—but perhaps he was too busy.

Like my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, I declare an interest as an employer. With the proposal to further raise employers’ NICs, the Government seem to want to pursue, in a manner that is hard to understand or explain, yet another way to damage the economy. I offer the Government a few morsels of attempted sanity. Taxing business at higher rates—making it more difficult to start up, maintain or expand a business—was, I am very much afraid to say, tried by the recent Conservative Government over the last few years and it did not work. In the period 2023-24, the economy ground to a halt. Now this new Government are trying the same approach. How can we possibly expect the outcome to be any different this time?

Over the past 18 months or so, while doing research for a book I have been writing, I have studied the available literature on the impact of taxes on economic growth. The clear consensus is that the taxes that hit the economy the worst are taxes on business and the business taxes that have the most negative impact on employment are—surprise, surprise—employment taxes. The clue is in the name employers’ NICs: “employers”; you know, the ones who employ people. Many employers would be happy if they could employ others merely out of the goodness of their heart, but that is not how the world works for the private sector. To keep a private sector enterprise going, a profit must be made. For that, taxes cannot be too high or else the cost of employing an employee becomes prohibitive, the business loses money and then it has to close down. So the first law of tax is: do not tax a business so high that the employers cannot afford to employ the employees. Yet that is exactly what the increase in employers’ NICs does.

Why on earth have our new Government decided to raise employment taxes to a new high? I discern three possible reasons. The first is to achieve economic growth. That is what the Government say their number one objective is, so in theory they must have thought that increasing these tax rates would increase economic growth. The second possibility is a less noble one: to find the money to pay off their allies. After all, politics involves trade-offs, so perhaps that is why they need to do this. The final possibility is that it is just not them in charge. Rather, they are in the grip of the fabled Treasury orthodoxy, taking their orders from officials at the dreaded OBR and the Treasury.

Let us look at these three possibilities. The first is that they are doing it to achieve economic growth. That has certainly been the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s chant—“growth, growth, growth”—both during the election and ever since. The trouble is that this Government have never laid out their theory of what actually creates growth. Beyond discreditable tropes about green jobs, the numbers of which will have little impact on the long-term economy, the Government have been unable to figure out what they have to do to achieve growth.

However, the answer is standing clearly in front of them. The repeated conclusion of every study on growth is: to grow an economy, you need government expenditure in the low 30 per cents, or less, of GDP, with tax revenues at around the same level; and you need light regulation that allows businesses—indeed, all enterprises—to get on with the job of providing the goods and services that the market wants, at a decent price and good quality, without having to spend all their time jumping through regulatory hoops. That is it. Economies with public sector expenditure levels in the mid 40 per cents of GDP, such as ours, taxes at the same high rate and ever-increasing regulation just do not grow fast, if at all. If this new Government really wanted to grow fast, they would be full of plans to shrink expenditure, to tax less and to regulate less. On all three dimensions, they are doing the opposite.

What is the conclusion? Either the claim that the Government are all for growth is just a chant or a slogan and not really meant, or they are so inept that, despite truly wanting the economy to grow—you have to believe that they do—they have no clue that increasing employers’ NIC will have exactly the opposite effect. I wrote an article for a Sunday newspaper yesterday, citing the instance of a friend running a 35-person high street business who, just to stay afloat after these tax hikes, has to fire two of his employees. He had planned to raise his headcount by two before this. The comments section below my article had entries from business owners claiming that they are in similar circumstances—having to fire people—or, worse, saying that the higher taxes mean, as my noble friend Lady Monckton described, that they have to close down their entire business.

As an interposition, I spoke to this friend this morning. He told me that he has been having difficulty figuring out how to fire two people. Obviously, it would not be great on either of them but, luckily, one of them resigned today. I said, “Where’s that employee going?” In an absolutely uncanny echo of what my noble friend Lord Horam said, my friend said, “Well, she’s gone to work for a local council”. She is being paid more. She can work from home for three days a week. On top of being paid more, she is getting that wonderful golden defined benefit pension. What else? Oh yes, she gets a year’s paid maternity leave.

Where is the money coming from that allows local councils and the Government, and the public sector in general, to pay for all of this? The money is not there. My noble friend talked about the fact that we are now below the middle of the advanced economies in GDP per capita. A while back, we were vying with America for the best GDP per capita in the world.

The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, probably would have described the situation of this new public sector employee as fair, because, after all, that is what she would need for a great life. However, the money is not there for what the Benches opposite always like to describe as “fair”. The noble Lords on the Benches to my left have an inexhaustible list of societal needs that must be paid for. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, rightly decried the decline in our Armed Forces expenditure. But the money is not there.

Why is it not there? It is precisely because of the high-tax, high-spend, high-regulation policies that Governments—on both sides of this House, I am afraid—have pursued over the last 25 years. During that 25 years we have not grown, precisely because of spending money on what was fair and what was needed, rather than spending money that we actually had. As a result, our economy has not grown. Had we grown more—say, at the same rate as the United States did during that time—our economy would now be 40% larger than it is right now. The money would be there. There is your needed money—the money that comes from economic growth. There is the economic growth which this Government’s tax increases will instead throttle.

It is not just my friend and his small business. As has been described today, millions of organisations are affected by this tax raise, not just SMEs but charities, NHS general practices, the arts and so on. Employment losses will, over time, be in the hundreds of thousands. I offer the Government a gentle hint: economic growth comes—despite a valiant attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, to assert otherwise—from increases in employment, not decreases.

The second hypothesis as to why the Government see it as necessary to impose this NIC hike is that, having paid off their allies so lavishly in the first few weeks after the election, they now need to find the money to pay for this; a 15% pay rise for train drivers and a 22% pay rise for junior doctors, and still those friends of theirs threaten to go right back on strike. With friends like these, I need say no more.

It is certainly true that these expensive commitments—along with so much money about to be poured down the drain on placating the green crowd and to satisfy other allies who think that the answer to the world’s problems is more and more regulation, so that a new regulator or quango is being brought into existence for every week so far that Labour has been in power—mean that an awful lot of money is being spent. With the Civil Service expanding in its thousands by the week, there are no savings in sight to help the Government pay for all these extra commitments.

We come to the third and final hypothesis: that the Government have been told what to do. Without any serious experience in this area, they therefore have no option but to succumb to their officials, but that in turn is driven by the OBR, which knows not much more about business and the economy than do the Government. It is the blind leading the blind.

The Government have created this problem. They increased expenditure in their Budget by £70 billion. Even with an increase to employers’ NICs, only half of that increase would be covered by additional taxes, and even that amount is true only if you believe the estimation of how much extra tax will be collected. It is, in fact, even worse than this. There is a large extra amount of expenditure that the Government and the OBR have persuaded themselves can be categorised in the national accounts as some form of investment, so that it is not included in the published deficit numbers. But every penny of that so-called investment money will have to be found through additional borrowing, which, added together, brings the additional level of borrowing needed to pay for all this to an extra £50 billion or so—and that is assuming that the economy grows at forecast, which an NIC hike makes quite unlikely.

The OBR asserts that, on net, some £15 billion will be raised from this NIC hike. It acknowledges, albeit to far too small a degree, that employment will decline as a result of this tax increase. That should make Labour hang its head. If the Government were to abandon the NIC raise, the OBR says that that would create a further £15 billion hole. The Government are doing what they have been told to do, and thus they proceed with this NIC raise.

The Growth Commission has contradicted the OBR’s calculation and calculates that the long-term impact of this tax increase will be negative £18 billion—and that is even before you get into the social and economic disruption of large numbers of people being laid off. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, you pay for this by not doing it. Surely, in his extensive and distinguished public life, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, must have understood that ever-increasing tax and spend just does not work.

What is the conclusion? We have a new Government. They came, they saw, they paid off their allies. Without clear detail they claimed a pre-existent £22 billion black hole, but this claim served only to make their options more constrained. They have accepted what they have been told to do by their officials, but imposing this tax is going to make the economy’s position, and theirs, much worse. They still do not appear to have a clue as to what they need to do to get economic growth going in this country.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I am almost finished.

I earnestly entreat the Government to set out on a search for an economic growth plan—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so sorry, but the noble Lord has now spoken for over 15 minutes. I suggest that he bring his remarks to a close.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I just informed the noble Baroness that I was about to finish, and I would have finished by now had she not interrupted a second time. I remind her that it is an indicative time, and one interruption—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so sorry, but the Companion states that Back-Bench contributions are limited to 15 minutes.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. It is an indicative time. I will finish.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Friday 8th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, before I move on to the substantive part of my speech, I want to touch on the impact on women of war, of which we have seen too many examples in the past 12 months, in Ukraine, Gaza and Israel. We have seen graphic examples of the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, in Israel on 7 October; the horror faced by mothers in the war in Gaza; and the fear faced by yet more mothers and women, terrified at the fate of the hostages taken by Hamas and the children stolen by Putin. As always, it is the women who are desperately seeking to protect and hold their families together in the face of horror.

I remind your Lordships’ House of my entries in the register of interests, specifically, my role as the chief executive of Index on Censorship, a charity which works with political dissidents.

I know that this debate is specifically about the role of women in the economy, and we have heard some extraordinary speeches, but economic equality and freedom is available only to those whose voices can be heard—to those who remain with us. I beg your Lordships’ indulgence as today, I remind the House of the women who have paid the ultimate price in the last 12 months because they dared to speak truth to power, dared to challenge the status quo, dared to fight for their communities using the only tool at their disposal: their voice.

Last year, I read out the names of 32 women who did extraordinary things in life which led to their deaths. Today, I shall build on those names and say the names of those who, devastatingly, have joined their ranks. These women are no longer with us, but we have a responsibility to say their names, to remember them and to be inspired by them.

There is Halima Idris Salim, a Sudanese journalist who was run down while covering the conflict by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Mossamat Sahara, a photographer for the daily Alor Jagat in Bangladesh, was killed while documenting a smuggling operation. Farah Omar, a Lebanese correspondent, was killed in a rocket strike in southern Lebanon, near the Israeli border, while reporting on hostilities in the region. Vivian Silver, a Canadian peace activist who founded Women Wage Peace, was killed on 7 October by Hamas. Ángela León, a Mexican activist leading a group of volunteers searching for some of Mexico’s more than 100,000 missing people, was shot dead for conducting her own investigations. Olga Nazarenko, a Russian anti-war activist, died in unexplained circumstances.

Maria Bernadete Pacífico, a 72 year-old black community activist in Brazil, was murdered by gunmen at her home after receiving threats. Armita Geravand, a 16 year-old Iranian girl, was reportedly assaulted by morality police for not wearing a hijab, just like Mahsa Amini. Tinashe Chitsunge, an opposition activist in Zimbabwe, was stoned to death by ZANU-PF activists. Samantha Gómez Fonseca, a Mexican transgender politician, was slain days before she was due to lead a demo demanding security for trans people in Mexico. Rose Mugarurirwe, an opposition activist in Uganda, was brutally murdered.

Heba Suhaib Haj Arif, a Syrian women’s right activist, was murdered two weeks after receiving death threats. Ludivia Galindez, a social leader and human rights defender, was shot dead by a group of unidentified armed men at her home in Colombia. Bahjaa Abdelaa Abdelaa, a Sudenese human rights defender, was shot and killed at a funeral in South Darfur. Teresa Magueyal, a Mexican human rights defender, was shot dead by a group of unidentified men.

This heartbreaking list is not exhaustive. In authoritarian regimes every day, women are harassed, detained and murdered because they dare to speak out. We do not know all their names so we cannot state them for the record today, but we can take a second to remember them—to remember the mothers, grandmothers, daughters, nieces, granddaughters, sisters, aunts, friends, partners and wives who decided not to be silenced, who tried to fight back. The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day is “Inspire Inclusion”. Let us be inspired by these brave women and include them in our prayers. May their memory be a blessing.

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, as a proud member of the Co-operative Party, it is a genuine pleasure to contribute to this debate. I pay tribute, as so many have, to my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark for introducing this incredibly important Bill and for continuing the work started in the other place by Sir Mark Hendrick.

I do not believe that anyone who has listened to my noble friend during this debate or at any other point could doubt his commitment to the co-operative movement. He is a stalwart co-operator and has dedicated many hours to campaigning for the co-operative movement, seeking to ensure a fairer and more equitable approach to our local economy.

As my noble friend outlined, co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies are not relics of the past but a fundamental aspect of our national economy, and provide a lifeline to communities seeking to be directly involved in the provision of services in their immediate vicinity. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton reminded us, for many of us nothing is more evocative of childhood than conversations about our family’s divi number. My partner can still cite his grandmother’s: 207619, Thelma Snell. But co-operatives and mutuals are more than retail outlets, important as those are.

As my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, both referenced, the British co-operative movement is as diverse as our economy and includes everything from cricket clubs to football pitches—that was news to me—and from housing providers to funeral societies, credit unions, insurance companies, shared community spaces, retail offers and even the odd public house.

That is why this legislation is so important. In the UK, 14 million of us are members of a co-operative or mutual. They employ more than 250,000 people and generate a combined turnover of £39.7 billion a year. They also collectively hold more than £200 billion in assets, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, highlighted. While those numbers may seem impressive, they are small fry compared to those of our friends in the EU. The co-operative sector in Germany is four times the size of the UK’s and is a sector of its economy embraced at both a federal and a local level.

Around the world, 12% of the population are members of a co-op and the largest 300 co-operatives and mutuals report an annual turnover of $2.1 trillion. From that comes a view of how capital can be used not for short-term gain but for long-term investment in which members understand that the success of the business and surpluses generated above the original capital asset are used for the common good. This business model also creates a stable and dynamic enterprise; co-operatives are twice as likely to survive their first five years of trading than other start-ups and are known to be much more ambitious in their plans for growth.

It is therefore imperative that we do what we can not only to foster the creation of new co-operative and mutual societies but to protect the ones we have, which is why the Labour Party has already pledged to double the size of the British co-operative sector after the next general election.

This Government speak a great deal about economic growth and levelling up. The co-operative movement is a vehicle that can and should be involved in delivering both, and this piece of legislation is a small step in helping the sector to move forward. It provides the safety mechanism that allows for any capital surplus to be held over and for the associated funds and assets to remain committed to the wider public good should a mutual cease to trade. It empowers the members of mutual societies to decide what should happen to assets upon the dissolution of their society. It will allow members the right to preserve the assets for the future, to deliver the original guiding intentions upon which their society may have been founded.

Currently, no such provision exists in the UK. Nothing exists that allows members to specifically confirm that any capital surplus would be non-distributable and remove the very tantalising incentive for demutualisation. Those pioneers who set up and found co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies never do so in the hope of turning a quick profit. They do so because of a desire to enhance the common good, which can be achieved only by co-operation. They seek not only to build a financial enterprise but to provide a community with a tangible solution to a shared need. Indeed, these co-operators have neither the right nor the expectation of securing personal financial benefit from the increased value of their society; this is where the problems arise.

This Bill, therefore, establishes the right from day one, if they wish, for new mutuals, co-ops and friendly societies to enshrine in their governing documents that any capital surplus in the event of dissolution will be held securely in the hope that future generations may, one day, pick up where they left off. It would stop eagle-eyed investors seeking to demutualise, distribute an unearned windfall profit and for ever end the common good that the founding members had intended from their original stake.

This Bill is a bulwark to those who see successful mutuals and co-operatives as an opportunity to asset-strip and make a quick buck on the backs of generations of working people who made a choice about the type of business they wished to support, so it definitely has the support of our Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The Government do offer generous tax relief on contributions to, and investment growth within, pensions. We also enable tax-free access to a proportion of savings. It is right that the Government control the cost of tax reliefs, and the £3,600 limit is one method of doing that. I can assure my hon. Friend that all aspects of pension policy and the tax system are kept under review in the context of the wider public finances.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

On Thursday last week, one of my oldest manufacturing companies, Dudson, went into administration. The average length of service is over 20 years, and we now have huge concerns about the pension scheme, as we do about everything else to do with the administration—there is no money left even for redundancy. Will the Minister arrange for me to meet the appropriate Ministers to ensure that we get Government support where we most desperately need it?

[John Glen]

I am delighted to give the hon. Lady that assurance. A ministerial meeting will be convened as quickly as possible.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my friend, the chairman of the APPG on beer, the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). It is an honour to serve as his deputy and as the Labour lead in the House on the issue of beer.

I must declare an interest—not one in the register—in that I am the hon. Member for the Titanic brewery, the best small brewer in the United Kingdom.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I’ve got the pubs.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I think I am going to be heckled throughout by my hon. Friend and neighbour.

Titanic has benefited hugely from small brewer’s relief, which I will touch on in a moment. First, I would like to put on record my thanks to Keith and Dave Bott not only for the support that I receive from them, but for the investment they have made in my community. They have ensured that small brewers have had a voice in this place, and others, for many years.

It is a pleasure to talk about a B-word that has nothing to do with Brexit. I think we can all agree that we have spent enough time on that for a little while. Instead, I would like to talk about the value of pubs to our society.

While the sector supports more than 1 million jobs in the country, and we heard various statistics from the hon. Member for Dudley South about it, we need to touch on the other things that the pub sector delivers, such as the impact on loneliness—especially providing somewhere for older gentlemen to go—and on our communities.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Member recognise the importance of linking community pubs with craft breweries, such as Loch Lomond and Lennox breweries in my constituency, which reduces social isolation and consumption of alcohol at home?

[Ruth Smeeth]

There is a huge opportunity for us to debate the benefits of off-licence versus on-licence, the support that people get when they enter a pub and the responsibilities of the landlord. That is especially the case when we talk about loneliness.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was stirred to action by the hon. Lady, my good friend, using the words “older gentlemen”—I qualify, but I am not lonely. The way to keep the pubs in our communities alive is for people to visit them. If we get more people going to the pubs, they will live longer. That is very important—and, by the way, that includes me.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I thank my friend for his intervention. I think a pint of Steerage from the Titanic brewery will definitely help him live longer.

Pubs bring everyone together in the community. Whether it is fundraising for local charities, increasing awareness of illnesses or just everyone coming together on a Sunday evening, pubs are at the heart of our communities when other institutions are falling away.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an excellent speech about the importance of the pubs at the heart of our communities. We are losing so many community pubs because of the terrible imbalance in our business rates regime. I am sure she will come on to it, but does she agree that this disparity—pubs pay 2.8% of the entire business rates bill but account for 0.5% of turnover, an overpayment of £500 million a year—desperately needs addressing?

[Ruth Smeeth]

I will touch on taxation in a moment.

I want to talk about the role of pubs in British culture and society, because they are a core part of who we are. People enjoy coming to the UK for tourism—an issue that we need to discuss even more as we head towards Brexit—and there is nothing more English or British than holding a pint. Tonight at the Sentinel business awards, which I cannot attend because of the debates in the House, everyone will toast their awards with a pint of local beer, because it is part of our community and our culture.

[Mary Robinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ruth Smeeth]

I am afraid that I have run out of time for interventions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, there are some stark figures about the impact of taxation on the sector that we need to acknowledge. Amazon UK paid £4.5 million in corporation tax last year. Black Sheep brewery, chaired by the wonderful Andy Slee, a Stoke-on-Trent constituent, paid £8 million in beer duty. Amazon UK has a turnover of £1.98 billion. Black Sheep brewery has a turnover of £19 million. Minister, there is an issue here. In 2016, eBay UK paid £1.6 million in corporation tax. Titanic brewery paid 25% of its turnover to HMRC—£2 million.

On the disparity in business rates, following the rate revaluation last year, Titanic brewery pubs’ rateable value went up by 20% across Staffordshire. The Amazon warehouse in Stoke-on-Trent fell by 10% in rateable value. There is a disparity, and it is simply not fair for online and offline businesses. Breweries and pubs cannot move off the high street, nor would we want them to.

Small business rate relief has been touched on, but I am going to run out of time. All I can ask the Minister at this point is to look at the requests made by the Society of Independent Brewers about the impact of the changes. We are at a cliff edge, and unless this is smoothed out, investment to enable smaller brewers to reach the next level will stop. I reiterate my invitation to the Minister earlier this year to come and have a pint with me at Titanic brewery at his earliest convenience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), my near neighbour, on securing this debate. He mentioned Baynhams beer, of which I am a regular consumer and supporter, and Ma Pardoes pub, where I am a regular visitor. In fairness to all the other Black Country beers and drinking places, I must say that it is a fantastic area for anyone who loves their beer. The sheer range of craft and real ales there is phenomenal.

I particularly welcome the debate because it is framed in the context of the taxation regime for pubs. We need a change in that regime, but that alone will not protect our pubs and their heritage unless it is allied with a change in the supervisory and regulatory relationship between pub tenants and pub-owning businesses.

Let me touch first on the tax regime, although Members have covered most of this. There is obviously a case for looking at alcohol duties. The fact that high-alcohol beers and ciders are taxed at hugely different rates is in itself a reason for looking at them. The fact that high-alcohol spirits are taxed at a lower rate is another reason for looking at them. Ultimately, it is the job of the Treasury to have a comprehensive review of these duties. That should be designed first to promote social drinking, secondly to sustain pubs and lastly to sustain Exchequer revenues.

[Ruth Smeeth]

My hon. Friend has touched on the fact that there are differential duties. Does he agree that it is ludicrous that there is still, in effect, a subsidy for cider producers whose products contain high levels of alcohol, when that is not the case for beer? There needs to be a level playing field across the sector.

[Mr Bailey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Given the increased consumption of cider and the increased tax revenues from it, I would have thought there was a case for looking at the relative taxation levels of the two drinks.

Business rates have been mentioned. I will not go over the details, but we have a ludicrous situation whereby someone who invests in their business and increases their turnover often gets a huge increase in their business rates as well. One example given to me involved somebody who took over a pub that had traded at £200,000. He raised that to £700,000 but then found that his business rates had gone from £8,400 to £37,000. He did get that reduced to £24,000, but the mere fact that he had such a big increase and that it was then revised would seem to demonstrate that the process for evaluating business rates is deeply flawed. I recognise the Government’s attempts to do something about that, but we really need a comprehensive review of business rates so that they are geared in such a way as to promote and reward investment rather than penalise it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend has named some of the measures that we have recently brought forward to support entrepreneurship in all parts of the country. At the recent Budget, the Federation of Small Businesses declared it the most business-friendly Budget ever, and rightly so. We have extended the start-up loans scheme, helping an extra 10,000 entrepreneurs to get the capital they need, and with that—along with our reductions in business rates and with entrepreneurs’ relief, the seed enterprise investment scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and reductions in corporate taxes, including for small businesses—we are creating the most globally competitive tax regime to support those who create jobs and enterprise in our country.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Data suggest that new businesses struggle in areas where communities do not have free access to cash. As of this month, the mother town of the Potteries, Burslem—a town of 20,000 people—no longer has access to a free-to-use ATM. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can work together to fix this?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady. We are continually pressing the Payment Systems Regulator and the LINK organisation, which manages the ATM network, to ensure a good supply of cash in all parts of the country. We recently issued a call for evidence at the Treasury to give greater consideration to how we can maintain that supply as we move to an increasingly cashless society and protect those who are vulnerable and harder to serve, perhaps including the hon. Lady’s constituents.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy).

Like my constituents, I am fed up. Too many Members have felt it appropriate to play political games with real people’s lives over the last three years. I voted to remain; I campaigned for remain; and, like the minority in my constituency, I believed that staying in the EU was the best option for the country, but I lost. In fact, I represent the third most leave Labour seat in England. I did not lose because my constituents were thick or racist; they are not. They just disagreed with remain voters on what the future direction of the country should be, as is their right.

To be candid, I am fed up with people patronising my friends and neighbours because they do not agree with some of the voices that are currently shouting loudest. My constituents voted in overwhelming numbers to leave the European Union, and they had good reason. They feel no benefit from our membership in their day-to-day lives. In fact, given that for 40 years as politicians we have blamed Europe for decisions that we in the House could have challenged, why were we surprised that the majority of the country voted against remaining in the EU? We have a responsibility to deliver that for them, while seeking to ensure that we achieve a Brexit that works for them and the country, and, most importantly, protects the next generation.

I want to vote for a deal. Crashing out with no deal is simply not an option for the country or for the Potteries. I have waited patiently for the Prime Minister to deliver a deal that I could vote for. I have waited for her, or one of her team, to reach out to those of us on the Opposition Benches and ask what the world needs to look like in our communities after Brexit—to ask what we need to deliver for trade, for industry, for jobs and for people to make this work. I am still waiting; my constituents need to know.

We need detail, and we need it before we are asked to take a leap into the unknown. We need certainty on the economy; we need reassurance on our sovereignty; we need guarantees on our national security; we need to know what our immigration framework will look like; we need assurances on the immigration status of EU residents in the UK and UK residents in the EU; and we need protections for both the environment and workers’ rights—but what have we got? A withdrawal Bill that speaks of fishing more than of jobs, a future plan that is not binding and a proposed deal that neither secures the Brexit for which my constituents thought they were voting, nor protects our long-term trading future. How offensive is it to this place that we have no guarantees on any of those issues less than a week before we will be asked to vote?

My constituents and I are left between a rock and a hard place. What is in front of us is a withdrawal deal that is, rightly, overwhelmingly about process, but the Prime Minister has failed to remember who she is negotiating for. For two and a half years, we have been consumed by process. The Prime Minister has forgotten about the people who are struggling to pay the bills. She has forgotten that, fundamentally, we are here to make people’s lives better. So it is no surprise that my constituents do not think that this is a good deal: in fact, fewer than 20 of them have asked me to support it.

While I am far from comfortable with the uncertainty that will exist when the motion falls next week, I cannot in all good conscience vote for a deal that leaves so many unknowns for my constituents. I beg the Government to try again and to give us more reassurances about the next steps for Brexit and our place in the world, so that we know where we are heading when we do leave the European Union on 29 March.

ATM Closures

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I met the PSR, it seemed wholly satisfied with listening to what LINK, rather than everyone else involved in the industry, had to say about the issue. That was surprising and disappointing.

The closure of free-to-use ATMs highlights the significant problem we have with the way access to cash is managed in the UK. There seems to be no effective oversight of the issue, and responsibility sits across numerous Departments, regulators and private companies. We need a regulator to have the powers to take a rounded view and implement effective measures that will ensure access to cash is protected. It seems likely that the PSR either does not have the power it needs or has not utilised fully and effectively the abilities it has. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

We are in a transition towards a cashless society, but we are not there yet. We need to be careful about how the transition is managed. Most importantly, we have to think about the impact on people who still rely on cash. Access to cash remains an important part of many of our constituents’ lives. Research from Which? has highlighted the fact that four in five people said that access to the free-to-use network was important in their daily lives and in paying for goods and services. Removing free access to cash would leave one in 10 people struggling to make payments, and would shut many consumers out of local shops and services.

We also need to think about what happens when the technology fails or in the case of hacking. This year the Visa payment system crashed and there were major online banking issues for TSB customers, many of whom of course did not have a local branch to visit as an alternative. The experience of other countries further along the journey towards a cash-free society, such as Sweden, where there has been a huge rise in the number of places that simply will not accept cash, is that there are now serious concerns about the lack of cash in the economy, so that the Government are looking at ways of addressing that retrospectively.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another challenge is the fact that in many communities there simply is not access to digital platforms—so that 25% of my constituents have not accessed the internet in the past six months? Moving to contactless payments or online banking is not an option available to them.

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is right. My constituency is neither rural nor a city; there are new-build towns that are in between, with surprisingly poor access to broadband in some places. We are asking people to use those services instead of visiting a local branch. That is not always practical—not least for those who are perhaps not as tech-savvy as others.

It is not just a matter of ATMs. The whole infrastructure that supports access to cash will be at risk if we move towards a cashless society too quickly. Without intervention from the Government it will be the elderly, the least well-off, rural communities, struggling high streets and small businesses that will pay the price. We see that happening in other countries that have made the transition too quickly. That is the driving force behind my private Member’s Bill to ban ATM charges and protect access to cash, the Banking (Cash Machine Charges and Financial Inclusion) Bill. In principle I do not believe people should have to pay for access to their own money. Long gone are the days when people’s employers handed them a pay packet at the end of the week, and the banks would not much like it if we all decided to keep our cash under the mattress. We have little choice but to keep our money in banks, and that money generates profit for banks, so we should not be paying to get access to it.

As LINK chips away at the funding formula for ATMs and more and more people use contactless and digital payment methods, there will be far fewer ATMs and more of the ones that are left will charge us for the privilege of withdrawing our cash. I do not want to stand in the way of progress towards a cash-free society, but I do want to shift the burden of that transition away from consumers and on to banks, who after all are the long-term beneficiaries of a cash-free society. We will never reap the rewards of those savings when they come, so let us have them now by requiring the banks to continue providing free access to cash where there is still a demand for it.

I was glad that the Labour party adopted the aims of my private Member’s Bill. For me, and for the Labour Front Bench, the rejuvenation of the high street is not just about helping small businesses; it is a social issue as well. I have noted that there is a growing cross-party consensus on the issue. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—he is not here for the debate, but I have notified him that I shall be mentioning him—has a private Member’s Bill on ATMs, the Minimum Service Obligation (High Street Cashpoints) Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who is here today and who, with his private Member’s Bill, the Banking and Post Office Services (Rural Areas and Small Communities) Bill, has highlighted the responsibilities that banks have to the consumers who bailed them out during the financial crisis. In addition to what is being done by Members of this House, a range of organisations have raised the same concerns. They include Which?, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of Convenience Stores.

I recently met the chair of the independent access to cash review, and I know that the review is considering in detail some of the issues I have touched on in the debate, so I look forward to seeing what comes out of that. However, in the context of bank branch closures up and down the country, and with high streets and rural communities facing ever greater challenges, the Government must take a serious look at the issue now. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair]

The hon. Gentleman is right. With declining public transport provision in rural communities, if someone does not have the provision of a car they are left completely stranded, with no access to cash.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the challenges is that LINK, when it makes these decisions, looks at a map and has no understanding of local territory? It has no idea how steep some of the hills are. Access can be almost impossible for someone trying to walk 1 km, never mind 10 km.

[Kirstene Hair]

I agree. That is why I want to talk about how important it is to do impact assessments before we lose the ATMs, so that those issues are closely considered.

The Association of Convenience Stores has criticised LINK’S FIP, saying that, “it is not clear whether LINK has the resources to implement these commitments across the network.” For example, LINK previously identified 2,651 deprived areas in the UK that are eligible for free-to-use ATM subsidy, but 10 years after the introduction of the FIP, 824 of those did not have free access to cash within a 1 km radius.

We need to watch what commitments LINK makes to ensure that ATM networks in rural areas are properly protected as rates are reduced further in the years ahead. The question is whether the LINK process of identifying vulnerable ATMs is working or whether we need to have further impact assessments. As the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said, we need to ensure that this is not a “wait and see” game. We must work ahead of time to ensure that people are not negatively affected when they lose their ATMs. That is a huge issue across my Angus constituency, and for hon. Members across the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) on securing such an important debate on an issue that is of genuine concern to many of my local residents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. The issue affects both rural and urban communities. Up and down our country, towns and smaller communities are losing access to community-based financial services on an almost monthly basis. These are not “nice to have” facilities; they are a lifeline for people and communities that still depend heavily on cash. I am of course referring to the community banking services—whether that means the local bank branch or the local ATM machines—on which so many people depend.

Earlier this year, I raised the issue of the impact of the closure of local bank branches, which we are also losing at an unprecedented rate. However, basic access to cash is now disappearing from our high streets. LINK’s own figures show that we are losing free-to-use ATMs at the rate of 250 a month. When we explore the reasons for this extraordinary cut to provision, we find that there are multiple excuses, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West made clear, it is in large part because of LINK’s cut in the interchange fee—a decision that had serious repercussions for our ATM network even before it was fully implemented.

The loss of these services is a serious problem in its own right, but there is a larger concern, too. The closure of well-used local bank branches in my constituency and the associated impact on residents and businesses have unfortunately been all too obvious in the last year. Burslem, Kidsgrove and Tunstall have all lost popular local branches. In the case of Burslem, we have found ourselves without a single bank branch left in the town and with no replacement of the ATMs that the NatWest and Lloyds banks operated until their closure. The sector’s lack of local understanding is evident all too often in its decision making. In Tunstall, the Co-operative bank justified its branch closure by stating that customers would be able to access the NatWest across the road. Unfortunately, that bank had already closed and its ATM machine went with it.

For communities that have already lost all-important branches and access to personal banking, ATMs represent a financial service of last resort—a fall-back for the millions of people who still make cash purchases every single day, and for those who do not make contactless payments and prefer to manage their household budgets by allocating cash towards their bills. To do that requires free access to money. A charge of £3.50 to access cash—as in parts of my constituency—is an extraordinarily large proportion for someone taking out only £10 or £20. As ever, those most struggling financially are being punished by the decisions of a faceless corporation.

In Burslem, the mother-town of the potteries, the closure of our last bank means that the only remaining free-to-use ATMs are inside retail facilities and there is nowhere for residents to withdraw cash in the evening. For a town with a thriving night-time economy, that is not just a hindrance to trade but a threat to public safety. Mr Hollobone, if you should leave the pub in Burslem late at night—I am sure you never would—and need money for a taxi, your only option is a long, dimly-lit walk to an out-of-town petrol station. That trip, understandably, could be threatening for many people, especially women, who would not want to make that journey alone. Alternatively, they would have to take a taxi and ask the driver to take them to an ATM and wait, which is far from ideal and costs more money.

In too many parts of my constituency and our country, free-to-use cash points are getting harder to find and further to reach, especially in areas of financial vulnerability. This is exactly the scenario that LINK’s financial inclusion programme was designed to prevent; it was supposed to identify the needs of rural and deprived areas and provide additional funding to ensure that communities did not have to travel more than 1 km, as we have already said, but it is not working. Huge swathes of my constituency do not have access to their money. Neither Goldenhill nor Chell Heath can access a free-to-use ATM within 1 km. In parts of my constituency, this is leading to a spike in the use of illegal loan sharks. There are human consequences to the decisions that LINK is making.

Often, the machines that LINK considers easily accessible to a community are not. The geography or terrain should also be considered. Given that an ATM costs between £7,000 and £10,000 to reinstall, it is almost impossible to get new ATMs in place where there is no provision. I know how important these services are to my constituents, which is why I secured a debate on community bank closures earlier this year. In every debate we discuss the immediate challenge, but we need a policy solution that tackles these issues in the round, which is why my constituency Labour party submitted a motion to this year’s Labour party conference calling for the protection of community banking services to be made official party policy. I am delighted that that policy has now been adopted.

We cannot allow banks to default on their responsibilities to our community, which is why I welcome this debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West on securing it. I fully support calls to protect our free-to-use ATM network and ensure every community has access to the services it needs.

Public Sector Pay

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. How the additional funding will be allocated will certainly be announced in due course by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcoming of the good news, unlike Labour Members, who are still looking extremely gloomy.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Chief Secretary and the Government have finally seen sense and dropped the cap. However, there is already a £20 billion black hole in the MOD budget. How exactly is it going to pay for this?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady is the first Opposition Member to welcome the pay rise, so I thank her for her support for public sector workers and for the pay rise we are giving them. I am working very closely with the Justice Secretary to make sure the pay rise is affordable within the Ministry of Justice budget. [Hon. Members: “Defence!”]

Summer Adjournment

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

I agree, and I think that the Government could help by offering some action. The process requires local authorities to work, and the Government need to give a lead.

Last Friday, I saw two women in succession at my advice centre who were living in a local Travelodge with their children. They are homeless, and both the victims of domestic violence. What is happening in the 21st century in this country that means our response to women and children fleeing domestic violence is to condemn them to a life of hostels and Travelodges? These establishments have no cooking or laundry facilities; children are forced to live on McDonald’s and other takeaway meals.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important speech. Does he agree that the situation is made even worse in the summer holidays, when children do not have access even to free school meals?

[Steve McCabe]

Yes, that is a real consideration. The situation is bad enough at any time, but it is much worse in this period. The reality is that these poor women are forced to spend their meagre incomes on takeaway meals and at laundrettes. Surely a civilised society ought to be able to do better, and surely these women and their children deserve better.

Finally, I learned this week that phone giants Vodafone and O2 plan to ride roughshod over my constituents’ views and erect a 17.5 metre phone mast in the heart of George Cadbury’s garden village of Bournville. They have not consulted local residents because they are not interested in their views, and they have not obtained proper planning permission. Apparently, officers at the planning authority, in their wisdom, missed the deadline for registering the application, which had previously been refused, by one day. Vodafone and O2 pounced on that error to claim planning permission by default.

These are the people who stand accused of ripping off the British taxpayer through £6 billion in tax avoidance. Their profits are all that matters. Their chairmen do not have the courtesy to reply to letters from the local MP and even refuse to meet local residents. I wonder how Mark Evans or Gerard Kleisterlee would like having a 17.5 metre mast in their gardens. These companies are little more than tax-avoiding parasites, and it is time that we took some action to curb their arrogant, bullying activities. We ought to think seriously about measures to exert far more control over these people, who do not care about our country, our people or our environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I wish to speak briefly on a matter that is of great concern to some of my constituents and that, unfortunately, I could not raise at MoHoCoLoGo questions yesterday. That matter is the way in which big housing developers across the UK are failing in their responsibilities to homeowners and residents. This country has a housing crisis; that much is clear. We desperately need more homes, affordable homes and a greater variety of housing stock in order to meet our needs both now and going forward. As a proud representative of the Potteries and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ceramics, I would add that we should be making sure that we are using British ceramics in every home that we build—what could possibly be better than Staffordshire bricks and tiles? However, as great as our ceramics are, I am here today to discuss the quality of the finish of some of our new homes. This is a very real problem in my constituency.

For months, my constituents on the Bluebell Croft estate and elsewhere in Kidsgrove have been forced to live among unfinished roads and shoddy workmanship because the housing developer, Taylor Wimpey, has simply not bothered to finish the job.

I can testify to the appalling state that the estate has been left in. Roads have not been tarmacked and have been left with raised metalwork, which poses a hazard to drivers. Kerbs and pavements have been left damaged or unfinished. A playground built within the estate has a range of safety issues that have not been addressed, and we are now in the school holidays. It has taken one resident nearly a year to get the streetlights outside her house switched on.

Throughout all this, Taylor Wimpey has refused to engage with its customers. One resident, who has been complaining to the company since she moved in last December, told me that she has been fobbed off every single time. The company has ignored communication from the local councillors for the area and has now ceased to respond to correspondence from me. When invited to attend a public meeting, its representatives declined. This is simply unacceptable. On its website, Taylor Wimpey describe itself as a “community developer” that is

“committed to working with local people, community groups…and local authorities”. .

This is an audacious description, including almost every group that has been systematically ignored by Taylor Wimpey in my constituency.

My constituents are not the only people to have suffered in this manner, and Taylor Wimpey is not the only big housing developer to believe that it can ride roughshod over local communities. All too often it seems that it is those homes at the affordable end of the market that are most likely to be left incomplete as developers cut costs wherever they can, bulking up their profit margin at the expense of their customers. When it comes to good quality house building, it appears to be one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us.

What is happening in Kidsgrove is not an isolated incident. It is a snapshot of an issue that is recurring up and down our country. Last year, a YouGov survey for the housing charity Shelter found that 51% of homeowners in recent new builds in England had experienced major problems with their properties. These included unfinished fittings, problems with construction and faults with their utilities. More than half of people purchasing these new homes are unsatisfied with their purchase. In what other industry would these statistics be considered acceptable?

If a car manufacturer sold half its vehicles with faulty steering or a water company only managed to get water to half our taps, there would rightly be a national uproar. Yet in our desperation to tackle a very real housing crisis, we have allowed developers to build properties quick and cheap without fear of the consequences. All too often, the behaviour of these big developers goes unchallenged. They have money, expensive law firms and huge PR budgets to make sure it stays that way. But it is my role, and the role of each and every one of us in this place, to ensure that our constituents’ voices are heard. Money may be a great amplifier, but so is democracy.

It is about time that housing developers who act in this way have their mistakes brought to light and are made to answer for them. Taylor Wimpey proudly declares that its company’s history can be traced back more than 100 years. I need it to understand that my constituents cannot wait 100 years for it to find a conscience.

[Several hon. Members rose—]