RBS Closures (Argyll and Bute)

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The idea that the post office network in our rural communities can somehow pick up the slack on this is nonsensical. It is an absolute fantasy and it will not work.

Without any consultation whatever, RBS has decided that people in Campbeltown who wish to continue banking with it must now endure a 175-mile round trip to Oban. Alternatively, they could drive an hour to Claonaig, take a 30-minute ferry to Lochranza on Arran and drive over the hills for 40 minutes to bank at the branch in Brodick. RBS customers on the Isle of Bute, in order to remain RBS customers, will be expected to take a ferry to the mainland, get off at Wemyss Bay and drive or get a bus to Largs. No matter which way one looks at it, a visit to the nearest branch of RBS for customers in Campbeltown and Bute will be a day out of their lives.

Worse still is the position of the people of Inveraray. The closure of the RBS branch in Inveraray, despite previous assurances that RBS would not close the last bank in a town, means that there will be absolutely no banking facilities in that town at all. It borders on the unbelievable that a town such as Inveraray, with a booming tourist industry and three good-size hotels, and boasting numerous cafés, bars, restaurants and high-quality clothing outlets—a town that has an estate and a castle that is a magnet for tourists—will be left without a single bank. The Inveraray-based author and journalist, Marian Pallister, who launched her own online petition against the closures, was spot on when she said:

“The Inveraray branch is used by businesses, individuals and charities throughout Mid Argyll. Online banking is not a valid alternative in many rural areas and now businesses and charities will have to make a 75-mile round trip to the nearest RBS branch. Inveraray is a tourist hub and while this closure disadvantages local people, it is a death sentence for the local tourist industry”.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not represent an area that is losing branches, but I represent the headquarters; RBS is based in my constituency. Does he share my disappointment that RBS appears not to have researched whether the areas where it is closing branches were the same—or not the same—as those with broadband blackspots? The facilities that these areas need to replace the bank have not yet been rolled out to them.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree. It is a double whammy for so many of our rural communities. Whether RBS likes it or not, there are still plenty of people who rely on a local, accessible bank in their town or village: the elderly, who still depend on an over-the-counter banking facility; people with learning difficulties, who have built a relationship with bank staff and trust them to help with their banking needs; small shops and businesses—of which we have an abundance in Argyll and Bute—that still primarily use cash; and, of course, foreign tourists, of whom we have a plentiful supply in Argyll and Bute, looking for a cash machine or the ability to change currency, for which a local bank is essential. Moreover, as the hon. Lady said, people do not yet always have sufficiently reliable broadband to bank online, and let us not forget that some people still do not want to bank online. Every one of those groups will be affected.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this debate on a subject that has cost so many of our constituents so much. Public dissatisfaction with the conduct and running of our banking sector has been one of the dominant themes of the past decade, much of it prompted by the behaviour and management of RBS, which, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) pointed out, is in the news again this week with regard to bank closures.

We should remember, however, that there is a wider issue. What we have is the banking system’s systemic failure to protect its own customers. We must not underestimate the impact on those customers, each of whom is an individual—a business person—with a family. Owners of SMEs have found that they are the victims of this systemic failure that has cost them their businesses and, in some cases, their homes. I have a constituent who has been pursuing a case for 10 years. Following a review by the FCA, he been awarded compensation, but he does not believe that that compensation takes into account the consequential losses of his business and property, and the costs of having to arrange another loan. He estimates that he is now more than £1 million worse off than before he went into business with this national bank.

In the decade in which my constituent has pursued his complaint, I am his third Member of Parliament to whom he has brought his case. We are still having to argue that the system is wrong and needs to be changed. His is typical of businesses caught in a trap without fair protection in law. For businesses that want to challenge a bank in court, the process is slow and expensive, and if they lose, they will have legal costs to pay on top of what the original problem might already have cost them. Where is the incentive for the banks to avoid malpractice and obey the law if they know they cannot be challenged because their victims cannot afford to take them to court?

That is exactly that situation that many of our constituents have found themselves in. They want their day in court, or at least the opportunity for a legal process to decide what is fair. Yes, we have the financial ombudsman, but that can only arrange fair and reasonable settlements as it sees it. What about those who feel—rightly or wrongly—that they deserve better than that fair and reasonable settlement and that the ombudsman’s view falls short? That is why I believe we need a tribunal system that will allow the many SMEs that have been mis-sold to and mistreated—some would say cheated—by the big banks the chance to feel that the system can protect them. The process would be cheaper and less formal, and complainants would not need a lawyer. We know that such a process works in other places.

The system has failed. It allowed malpractice that cost hard-working individuals their businesses and homes. This is an injustice that we have an opportunity—indeed, a duty—to address, and I ask the House to support the motion.

Childcare Vouchers

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is an honour, Mr Bailey, to serve under your chairmanship again. I congratulate hon. Members on the breadth of the case they have put so far. With that in mind, I will keep my remarks brief and focus them on one specific area.

Much of our time as politicians is spent finding solutions to problems, whereas at the moment we are in danger of creating a problem for which a solution is already in place. It is a solution to a problem, the cost of childcare, from which more than 75,000 parents and families benefit. As we have heard, there are clearly advantages for many parents to the new system, which was always intended to replace childcare vouchers. By sticking with the proposal, however, we will create the problem of which I speak, a problem with tax-free childcare, to which the existing childcare vouchers are the answer.

We must also remember that often those most affected by the cost of childcare are those least able to access the new system. As we have heard, to qualify for the £2,000 cash saving, families must spend £10,000, but the Department for Education has shown that the average family spend is about £3,276 a year on childcare. From my own experience of returning to work, the cost of having a child looked after pre-school or, once at school, after hours can make a major dent in a family’s income, and that cost might make it more difficult for those on lower incomes to return to work than for those on larger salaries. Indeed, they might not be able to afford to return to work at all if the proposals go ahead, because they will not be able to earn enough to reach the £10,000 threshold. Therefore, returning to work is not in their interest or best for their family. Those are the families to whom childcare vouchers make the biggest difference. Those are the families who will probably not be able to access the tax credits, because they will not spend enough to qualify.

The Liberal Democrats believe that there needs to be a more flexible system. The Government’s decision to close the voucher scheme in April of this year needs to be revisited. As other Members have said, we need to give parents the choice, the flexibility to find the scheme that best suits them. That may be tax-free childcare or childcare vouchers. I know that the vouchers were originally intended to be replaced, but surely having the schemes running side by side is evidently more sensible. That way we could provide the best, most flexible and wide-ranging support for all families needing help with childcare.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

We will wait and see whether I have got the logic back to front. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, however, that the idea that it is possible to have on one hand a completely seamless border and on the other hand a United Kingdom that is outside the European Union does not work. There must be one of two solutions. The first, relating to where that border sits, would be very unpopular with members of the Democratic Unionist party, while the second goes against everything that the party in power is advocating. I do not think that there is a simple solution, and that is why I think that the issue has been kicked down the road. I suppose people are hoping that, perhaps as a result of phase 2 of the negotiations, there will be a miracle solution that will make possible a frictionless, seamless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but given that no one has identified it so far in the 18 months or so that have elapsed since the referendum, I am not confident that anyone will come up with it in the time that remains.

I believe that the Bill is unnecessary and, indeed, highly damaging. It was required only because the Government have set themselves against the solution that is our staying in the customs union. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) tried to highlight the differences between Labour Front Benchers and some of his hon. Friends, which is easy enough to do, but he could equally have chosen to highlight the differences on the Tory Benches. At least one Tory Member, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), considers the solution that the Government are trying to identify in all their fudges and workarounds to be staying in the customs union, and I agree with her. If there are differences of opinion, they exist on both sides of the House, not just between Labour Front and Back Benchers.

We will oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, not for—I was going to say mealy-mouthed reasons, but that might be unfair. I do not know the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) terribly well, but I have no reason to believe that he is, in fact, mealy-mouthed. I must say, however, that Labour Members are trying to sit on the fence for as long as is physically possible, in spite of repeated interventions from their own side. At some point, they will have to jump in one direction or the other. It must be getting very uncomfortable for them, sitting on that fence. The longer they sit on it, the sharper and more uncomfortable for their backsides it will become. At some point, they are going to have to jump. I hope that they will jump in the direction that they are being encouraged to do by some of their Back Benchers and by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Green party—namely, in favour of staying in the customs union and the single market long term, not just as a means of massaging support over the next few months but in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.

As I have said, I do not want to describe Labour Front Benchers as mealy-mouthed, but there is clearly some difficulty with the position that the Labour party is trying to adopt, and I would like some clarity on this. Labour Members say that they are interested in preserving jobs, for instance, and I wonder what work they have done to assess the impact of a substantial number of job losses in the transport industry. A lot of goods are transported from the Republic of Ireland to Dover through Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Those involved are thinking of simply cutting out the rather complicated business of crossing the UK border altogether and instead shipping the stuff straight from Ireland to, say, Cherbourg. That would result in the loss of many jobs in Britain along the way.

We have heard many references to the VAT change, which could affect between 100,000 and 150,000 businesses. Concern was expressed earlier that some larger businesses can be quite aggressive towards small suppliers, but a lot of the businesses affected will be small businesses that suddenly find themselves in difficulties with their cash flow. I wonder what analysis the Government have carried out on that. I am afraid that, as in so many areas relating to Brexit, the answer is that there has been no impact analysis and that the Government are simply proceeding with these changes.

One of the key claims by the leave campaign was that leaving the EU was about cutting red tape. I would love the Minister to confirm that the measures in the Bill will cut red tape for businesses, but frankly I cannot see how businesses will benefit from a reduction in red tape in any shape or form as a result of this legislation. Instead, businesses that are not subject to red tape at the moment will have to take on red tape that they have never previously had to deal with. The Minister must at least try to address that point, given that one of the main claims made by leave campaigners was that leaving the EU would cut red tape for businesses.

We could talk at length about the delegated powers, as we have done on many other Bills relating to Brexit, but there is no point in rehearsing the arguments that have been made on those Bills, because the Government are clearly intent on taking advantage of the situation and cutting Parliament out of the loop as much as possible.

If the Government want to proceed in the way that they are doing at the moment, trade remedies will be essential. Members will be aware that trade remedies are currently implemented by the EU, which has more than 100 such measures in place against imports from 25 countries. To what extent does the Minister expect those measures to be replicated? Also, does he believe that it will be possible for the UK, operating alone, to have more effective trade remedies than those currently implemented by the EU with its 28 member states? Again, we need clarity, honesty and accountability. We need to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that the trade remedies available to the United Kingdom on its own will be weaker and less effective than what is currently available to us as a member of the European Union.

I welcome the fact that the Government will legislate to ensure that we can maintain a system of trade preferences for developing countries. I have already referred to the VAT issue and to the impact on red tape. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Bill will have no red tape implications, although it is hard to see how he could possibly do so. [Interruption.] Would my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) like to intervene on me?

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

indicated dissent.

[Tom Brake]

No. Okay. I thought my hon. Friend was poised to come in with a trenchant point. I am sure that she has one, and that she is saving it up till later.

The Government have brought forward a Bill that is needed simply because they have chosen to adopt one of the more extreme Brexit options open to them: settling for no deal whatsoever or coming out of the customs union. In those circumstances, it is clear that they will need to provide the legislation that is set out in this Bill and that trade remedies will need to be in place. I have put to the Minister some specific questions about whether he can demonstrate that the Bill will not impose an additional red tape burden on businesses and whether the trade remedies that he is advocating in the Bill are likely to be more effective for the United Kingdom than the ones currently available to us through the European Union. With that, I will happily sit down.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

I was hoping this evening that we might begin to get past some of the old arguments and debates over whether to leave the EU that we have been having ad nauseam over the past year and more, but it seems as though some people cannot understand that if we do not leave the single market and the customs union, we simply have not left the EU. It is by virtue of being a member of the EU that we are in the customs union, and we automatically leave it on the day we leave the EU.

The opportunities that are there for this country as a result of leaving the EU simply will not be there if we stay in the single market. The behind-the-border trade reforms that can give advantages to our service industries will not be possible if we do not have control of our own regulation, and being a member of the single market will obviate that entirely. Similarly, on the customs union or, indeed, a customs union, if we leave the control of our customs and trade policies with the EU, everybody would judge that to mean our not having left the EU. What we need, and what I have argued for consistently, is an advanced and modern form of customs co-operation that enables our trade to be as frictionless as possible. There will be frictions, however, and we should not shy away from talking about them. The Bill begins to allow us to have control over all the levers that enable us to put such things into place. This enabling legislation is vital so that we can have the systems that are required for things to operate properly on day one after we leave the EU.

I will certainly support the Bill’s Second Reading, which will give it this House’s support in principle. We have heard quite a lot of discussion about the different policy stances that the Bill will enable us to take up in future, and there will obviously be much more discussion about what our trade policies should be. It is entirely right that that should happen in this House in a constructive and, I hope, cross-party manner, because this is about our futures and those of our children and grandchildren, too.

I want to address a few of the things that have come up this evening. The point about VAT and cash flows is interesting and I have raised it before, and it is worth remembering that the EU is going through its own change process on VAT. It intends to impose a directive that would essentially mean that the country from which a good is being exported will collect the VAT at its own rate rather than have a good exported on a VAT-free basis and then get the receiving country to account for the difference after having collected VAT on receipt. That in itself will change a lot of the cash flows around intra-European trade, and it is worth examining more closely whether it makes sense in that context for us to think about having a system that enables us to collect VAT for each other in the future. I am not necessarily against being party to some sort of arrangement with the EU on VAT to enable that smooth process at the border to continue, but we need to look at it much more closely. I hope Ministers will give some thought to that and inform the House of their thinking.

We have also heard today about rules of origin, and it is right to raise that—I have previously raised rules of origin both in the International Trade Committee and in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made the excellent point that the cumulation of rules of origin is very important in any trade deal. We will have to think about those things anyway, and we absolutely have to think about them in the context of rolling over the trade agreements we already have by virtue of being in the EU. There is a lot of good will on the part of foreign nations that are party to those deals, but rules of origin will definitely have to be addressed in our negotiations with the EU.

As my colleague on the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said earlier, tariff-free quotas are also important in that context, and the EU has to think about that. When it comes to rules of origin, we also have to remember that our supply chains are highly integrated, and it is not as simple as saying that we just cannot trade with the EU anymore. It would also be very damaging for the EU, as having to find suppliers that are not part of our supply chain would create a lot of pressure on EU businesses, and it would create a lot of pressure on the EU to find resource from within its own economies to meet those supply chain needs. That is not something the EU would want.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about European suppliers needing to find someone to supply, and about companies in this country needing to use such supplies. Is there not a danger that, particularly in the car industry where companies from other parts of the EU are currently in this country, we will lose viable industries? They will simply go where the supply chain is easier and where they will not be tied up in the red tape proposed in this Bill.

[Mr Fysh]

The hon. Lady is right that, particularly in the car industry, rules of origin are an issue across the world. In the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, the ability of US and Canadian car manufacturers to integrate their supply chains makes a big difference. Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the Canadians are considering re-entering in a modified form, rules of origin on cars are probably one of the main determining issues. The degree to which local content needs to be demonstrated is a major factor.

Among other things I hope that, through this process, car manufacturers will look at sourcing more UK content in order to raise the proportion sourced in the UK, or indeed in the EU. It is all to play for, and there are lots of different ways of organising it. I would not necessarily say it is impossible or too hard but, yes, it needs to be thought about.

In that context—I have also said this before—the Customs Declaration Service that HMRC is working on has to be flexible enough to change the values that are put into the system. Whether on VAT, import duty or the cumulation of rules of origin, we need to make sure the system is able to be changed flexibly and easily at a later date. If that is not the case, this will be a nightmare and we will have a computer system that fails. I hope HMRC is well aware of that fact and of the need for that flexibility.

We have also heard about trade remedies, and it is right to say that the Trade Remedies Authority needs to be put in place very soon. The sooner it can get on with doing the work of analysing what the competitive position in various of these industries where existing or potential future remedies are going to be needed, the better; that has to be done with a good lead time in order for us to be able to argue at the WTO that we should potentially think about renewing trade remedies or putting new ones in different industries in place.

We also heard a little about lesser duty. It is fair to say that the lesser duty provisions in the WTO agreements are there for a reason: to try to prevent an arbitrary and egregious application of trade remedies. However, we need to make sure that we use our opportunities arising from coming out of the EU to make these arguments for how the global trade system should work in a non-egregious and non-arbitrary way, one where we can have rational dispute resolution mechanisms for our trade.

Having said those things and having said how necessary this Bill is, I must say that I have some concerns about the text, which I would like to discuss with Ministers and think about during the later stages of the Bill. I am concerned about clause 42, which deals with the EU law relating to VAT, and the potential for statutory instruments to be brought forward to alter the rights, remedies and procedures which have been imported by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Similarly, I would like more clarity on clause 47, which deals with EU law relating to excise duty. We need to think a bit more about it, because it seems to give the Treasury and Treasury Ministers the power to alter fundamental concepts of EU law and the application of it in the future.

We also heard about clause 31, which relates to the potential implementation of a customs union, with fairly draconian Henry VIII powers. Admittedly they are subject to an affirmative procedure in the House of Commons, but it would be worth knowing a bit more about what the intent of this is and exactly how it would operate. Overall, we need to make sure we use this opportunity and this Bill to get a positive new customs co-operation system in place with our EU friends and allies. What we want is a good relationship with the EU, and it does not have to be at the expense of the rest of the world. This is not an either/or situation. I have heard many commentators say that if we are not part of the EU, we cannot do anything with the EU and that all the other deals we might do around the rest of the world cannot replace that. That is a false argument because we are looking to build on what can be as near as possible to our current relationship with the EU, and if we can do that really well and are smart about it, we can make a great success of leaving the EU.

Devolved Powers in Scotland

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard]

No, I will not.

We use the powers we have got. Crime is at an all-time low. More than 1,000 extra police officers have been on the beat over the 10 years of the SNP Government.

Scottish school students’ highers results were a full third higher than they were 10 years ago—a better performance than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I shall not be giving way at all, because I have not got the time.

Help for small businesses in Scotland is at an unprecedented level, and much higher than it is in the rest of the UK. In Stirling, 4,882 businesses benefit from the small business scheme.

In Scotland, we will ensure that fracking will not take place beneath the houses of people living in Stirling, in line with their publicly expressed wishes. We have done what we can to mitigate the effects of the Westminster Government. We have used the hardship fund to try to mitigate the bedroom tax—a pernicious attack on the poor. In Stirling, there are 1,021 recipients of that fund.

We have a better-performing national health service than any other part of the United Kingdom. There are still many challenges, but there is a higher spend per head, more staff, shorter waiting times and a better public perception.

We have built 60,000 affordable homes in Scotland in the last 10 years, including 3,085 in Stirling, of which 777 are social housing. Most of all, in Scotland, if someone wants to go to university, it is free and they do not have to cripple themselves with unnecessary debt to pursue their education.

Compare and contrast the Scottish Government’s record with that of the Tory Government here in Westminster—a Government who, after just four months in office, appear to be punch-drunk and adrift on a sea of uncertainty and chaos of their own making. I know which Government I would rather have in control of my life: the Scottish Government led by the SNP. No wonder the SNP is 17 points ahead in the opinion polls and the Conservative party is trailing in third place in Scotland. The wafer-thin majority of the hon. Member for Stirling is disappearing day by day.