The Economy

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

As I was saying, Gordon Brown, as Chancellor in 1997, boasted about deregulating the banks and the financial sector. At the time, he was warned by the then shadow Chancellor—the Conservative shadow Chancellor—Peter Lilley, that deregulation would

“cause regulators to take their eye off the ball”—[Official Report, 1 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-2]—

and that it would be a field day for spivs and crooks everywhere. That is what he said, in this House, and during Labour’s term in office, bank leverage rocketed from an average of 20 before they came to office to an average of 50 times during their entire time in office. Labour was responsible for the biggest banking crash in global history, and they had better get used to it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right. A Labour Chancellor deregulated banking and created a light-touch system, and we all paid the price.

I want to compare my approach to infrastructure with Labour’s. I am going to invest in new infrastructure that will grow the economy. Labour would borrow hundreds of billions to renationalise productive assets and then run them into the ground. I want to unleash all the talent and expertise of the private sector. Labour says—I quote the shadow Chancellor here—that business is the “enemy” and would tax it into submission. I will do all my work within a careful and credible fiscal framework; Labour would simply waste the money just like last time.

[Clive Efford]

There is a real credibility gap in what the Chancellor is saying, because if austerity was the right thing to do in 2010, why is it not still the right thing to do now, given that debt has doubled to £1.8 trillion or 80% of GDP? How can we believe that the Government intend to go on this huge spending spree when they have been doing quite the opposite to try to tackle the problem? The Chancellor is keen on quoting the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but it predicts that we will need another dose of austerity if he carries on. This economy needs investment, not the austerity that the Government are planning.

Discrimination in Football

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the good work done in the community. I have met with Fulham, been to its training ground and seen the work it does in the community, and have also met with Chelsea about particular issues. The pride in a football club and the badge can be used so positively, and we must harness that.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This year I had the pleasure of judging the football community trust club of the year awards and was able to read the testimonies of many football clubs and see how much work is done at those clubs to tackle racism in our communities. Football as an institution probably does more than any other. Does the Minister agree that if we are to show leadership as politicians, we must put our own houses in order and set the highest standards for membership of our organisations when it comes to Islamophobia and antisemitic behaviour?

[Mims Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that event on the terrace here in the House of Commons, which showed how much good work is done in clubs across the land. It is absolutely right that we do not lose sight of the positive things happening in our communities and, above all, that we are not afraid of standing up to intolerance, because frankly that does no one any good.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill (First sitting)

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I could not resist the opportunity to say what a delight it is to see you, Ms Buck, in the Chair. We both came into Parliament in 1997 and this is the first time I have served on a Committee where you have been in the Chair. May I say how expertly you have handled proceedings this morning?

I am sorry for not being here at the start. I wish I could blame Southeastern trains. The only accusation I can make against them is that they caught me out by being on time this morning.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I just want to say, as someone who has served under Ms Buck, she always does a great job.

[Clive Efford]

Yes, and I would not suggest that she falls down in her performance in any way.

I wanted to rise to say congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. I call him my friend because, although others might not know this, we have known each other for 40 years. We used to run a football team in south-east London together when I was a youth worker. What a tremendous job he did back then, being very compassionate and committed to the young people from that part of London. I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but it is a pleasure to see him here and I wish him all success with his Bill. I hope that he succeeds in steering it through and getting it on to the statute book. Congratulations to him.

Public Sector Pay

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have seen disposable incomes—the money people have to spend—increasing under this Government because we have cut tax for basic rate taxpayers by £1,000 a year. We know that the Labour party wants to raise tax to the highest peacetime levels, and the reality of that would be less money for hard-working public and private sector workers.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Not one of the examples that the Chief Secretary announced is above the consumer prices index inflation rate of 2.4%. This is a real-terms cut for public sector workers. The secretary of the Unison branch at my town hall wants to know the Chief Secretary’s message for his branch members. How are they meant to survive when they are facing yet again—as they have year on year, for the past eight years—a real-terms pay cut?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The vast majority of the numbers that I announced are above inflation, but the hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear that. I would point out that these pay awards are for the period 2018-19. We are seeing inflation fall, and many of the awards represent increases significantly above that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have created the £4 billion housing infrastructure fund—it is exactly to deal with this problem—and a £600 billion pipeline of new infrastructure projects. He and I have already met to discuss the issues in his constituency, and we will be taking that forward.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Is it possible to provide the funding that our NHS needs and at the same time keep to the reckless tax cuts that the Government announced in their manifesto last year?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

We did not announce any reckless tax cuts in the manifesto last year. The Prime Minister made it very clear in her announcement about NHS funding that we will continue to deliver on our fiscal rules, and we will continue to ensure that debt falls. I will make announcements at future fiscal events explaining exactly how we will do that.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate.

My constituents were private tenants who had lived above a shop for many years and brought up their children. In 2007, they decided to buy the property when it came up for sale at auction. They were customers of NatWest, which agreed that they could have a mortgage for 10 years. They bought the property on 6 July 2007, and were contacted by the bank to pay valuation fees. The valuation should have informed the bank that my constituents needed a regulated mortgage, since they occupied more than 40% of the property. On 9 July, NatWest informed my constituents that they needed to open a joint bank account, take out a one-year business loan and pay £4,000 in fees for the privilege. That was due to the fact that the premises included a shop. One year later they were allowed to take out a two-year loan, again with more arrangement fees. They thought that was normal, because they did not understand that they should have had a regulated mortgage contract.

This debate is about small and medium-sized enterprises, but my constituents were forced to become an SME, and they were treated appallingly by NatWest. They did not understand the system, and the bank took full advantage of that. They continued to pay the loan without any defaults. After the two-year loan period expired, the bank attempted to contact them, but that was cancelled due to the snow. They finally met up five months after the two-year loan had expired in 2011. In May 2011, the bank told my constituents that they were in default. That resulted in a complaint to the bank, which found in favour of my constituents. However, the bank continued to pursue them, asking them to sell the property.

My constituents made a further complaint, and on 19 January 2012 they received a response from the bank’s complaints department, which said that it was nothing to do with anything they had done, but that:

“The bank needs to rebalance its exposure in the property area. We have twice as much property funding as any of our competitors and this needs to be managed down to more normal levels.”

It was nothing to do with anything my constituents had done wrong; it was what the bank had done wrong, yet my constituents were forced to pay for it. While that was going on, the bank tried to close one of my constituents’ bank accounts, and from then on they were harried into selling the property. It was put on the market for £700,000, but because they were under pressure, they finally had to sell it for £585,000. They were never given the opportunity to live in that property and plan ahead with any confidence.

My constituents finally went to the Financial Ombudsman and requested a disclosure of documents. They discovered that they were being dealt with by none other than the Royal Bank of Scotland Global Restructuring Group, despite having taken out the original loan with NatWest. GRG convinced the ombudsman not to investigate the case and to leave it to the GRG disputes resolution process. When my constituents asked how the involvement of GRG came about, they were told that it was due to the involvement of a specialist relationship manager. GRG claims that the account was never transferred to it and states that the SRM consulted GRG during the relevant period of 2008 to 2013. Therefore, GRG did not recognise my constituents, and they were not part of the review process. My constituents were never informed of any of this; it came to light because they complained and asked for documents to be disclosed by the ombudsman. GRG also convinced the ombudsman not to look at any documents going back further than 2013.

NatWest is part of the RBS group, but it operates under a separate licence. How is it possible for two separate banking organisations to share customers’ information in this way? Is that a matter of concern to the FCA? Are NatWest and RBS GRG at fault for not keeping my constituents informed? The bank made the initial error when it forced my constituents to take a loan for one year, then two years, then no years—it simply failed to renew it—and then foreclosed on my constituents because it was overexposed in the property market. My constituents approached the FCA, but they do not know where their case now is. The FCA has to hold an inquiry into this matter. We have to get to the bottom of it on behalf of people who are just being bullied by the banks.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I acknowledge the outstanding concerns of many people across the United Kingdom, and that is why I welcome the FCA’s consultation. It is my belief that widening SME access to the FOS is the right thing to do.

[Clive Efford]

My constituents became involved in this not because they had an SME, but because they were trying to get a mortgage and were forced into this process. The mistake was made with the first loan that was given to them, but the ombudsman will not recognise that and look into it. What we need is more pressure on the ombudsman to listen to the consumer and not the banks.

[John Glen]

I listened very carefully to the case the hon. Gentleman outlined, and I recognise the challenges that the FOS has to face up to. That is why I welcome the FCA’s investigations and the FOS’s own investigation following the “Dispatches” programme.

It is important that the landscape for dispute resolution for SMEs does not discourage or inhibit the ability of banks and small businesses to resolve disputes between themselves in a satisfactory way, where possible. I therefore welcome the reviews being undertaken in this area by the APPG on fair business banking and finance—ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the hon. Member for East Lothian—and by UK Finance, as well as the Treasury Committee’s ongoing interest in this area. When the findings of these reviews are published, we will consider them carefully, along with the outcome of the FCA’s current consultation.

In the interests of time, I will briefly conclude by summarising the Government’s position. It is right that we wait for the conclusion on GRG of the FCA’s investigation of the matters arising from its skilled persons report before determining what further actions need to be taken, and I reserve judgment on what they could be.

On dispute resolution more widely, we must acknowledge the existing avenues, including the work that is going on in terms of reviewing and enhancing the Financial Ombudsman Service’s provision. The FCA is progressing its work looking at the relationship between SMEs and financial services providers, and the APPG and UK Finance are undertaking their reviews as well. In the light of all the work going on, and the imminent conclusion of it, it is important that I consider that before we take alternative routes.

Once again, I thank all Members on both sides of the House who have raised very important issues on behalf of their constituents. I remain engaged to find a solution—a solution that works for all of them.

Budget Resolutions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman. What we have said very clearly is that under our fiscal rule, unlike that of this Government, we will borrow not for day-to-day expenditure but to invest. That investment will grow the economy, and, as a result of that growth, we will cover any need to borrow. That is what any sensible Government is doing right the way across the globe, right the way across Europe. It is that attitude displayed by the hon. Gentleman that has caused our economic problems. The lack of investment over seven years has affected our productivity.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Many of the things that have been welcomed in this Budget—and some things have been welcomed—by people outside this House are measures that we have been calling for since the downturn in 2008. If those measures are right now, they were right back then, which means that it is a consequence of austerity and the economic policies followed by the Tories that has made our economy flatline for virtually seven years.

[John McDonnell]

The issue is that whatever was put forward in the Budget yesterday was so trivial that it will not have the effect that is required.

Investment by businesses is the lowest in the G7 countries. The few measures announced yesterday just will not address that. They will not close the gap between the south and the rest of the country by investing in a rail project in the north-east that will receive just 2% of the total cost of Crossrail in London. Our economy and our people will only reach their potential when there is real new investment brought forward by Government on a scale that is needed to meet the opportunity. The right approach from 2010 would have been to target the real economy and real investments to produce growth and so bring the deficit into line. Because the investment that was needed then did not materialise, productivity growth has stagnated, and because productivity growth has fallen away, the forecast deficit has been widened by the OBR to some £30 billion by 2021. The Government know that austerity is not working. They have now been reduced to fiddling the figures to meet their own targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of council houses, because it gives me another opportunity to remind the House that in 13 years in office, Labour built fewer council houses than have been built since the return of a Conservative-led Government. Yesterday’s measures, which I will come to in a moment, are ambitious and will lead to more council houses, which we welcome.

[Clive Efford]

Can the Secretary of State explain how it is logical to cut stamp duty on houses worth less than £300,000, which will increase the price of properties, cut the tax coming in and benefit not first-time buyers but only those selling properties?

[Sajid Javid]

I think the hon. Gentleman should speak to the leader of his own party, who stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday claiming that it was his policy from his manifesto. The hon. Gentleman needs to go and do some homework.

When Labour came to power in 1997, the average home cost three and a half times the average wage. By the time it slunk out of office in 2010, it was nearly seven times the average wage. As for the neediest in society, Labour cut the number of social homes for rent by more than 420,000 units. That is its track record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

This is a timely point at which to remind the hon. Gentleman that when a Government leave this country with the biggest budget deficit of any industrialised country, there are consequences, and Labour Members have not once—I repeat, not once—got up at the Opposition Dispatch Box to apologise for what they did to this country in their 13 years in office.

The Chancellor has also promised to provide additional funding for a future NHS pay settlement, so that our nurses are properly rewarded without taking money out of patient services. We are investing more in our schools: they will get £600 extra for every pupil who takes A-level or core maths; £27 million will help to improve how maths is taught in 3,000 schools; £49 million will go towards helping students resitting GCSE maths; and £350,000 of extra funding a year will be given to every specialist maths school that has been set up across the country. That is a massive investment in numeracy—sadly, it comes too late for the shadow Treasury team—that will help to ensure our young people have the skills they need to compete in the future high-tech jobs of the 21st century.

Not all public services are the responsibility of central Government; many are delivered by our brilliant local councils, whether parishes, districts, counties, metropolitans or unitary authorities. I am well aware of the pressure that local authority budgets are under, particularly with regard to social care. That is why this year’s spring Budget provided an extra £2 billion to help to meet the immediate needs in this vital area. I remain totally committed to delivering fair, effective funding for councils at all levels, and we will obviously return to this in next month’s local government finance settlement.

In the meantime, we are pushing ahead with our pilot schemes for 100% local business rate retention, including in London, and we are reforming business rates themselves. Revaluations will switch from every five years to every three years, avoiding the cliff edge that currently confronts many businesses, particularly smaller ones. We are changing the law so that businesses affected by the so-called staircase tax decision can have their original bills reinstated and backdated. We are bringing forward the change in uprating from RPI to CPI, which will now take effect from next April, saving businesses £2.3 billion over the next five years.

One council, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, has had to deal with an unprecedented tragedy this year. The fire at Grenfell Tower should not have happened, and it should not have been possible. Since the blaze, the people of north Kensington have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient, courageous and proactive, and they deserve the full support of this Government and this House. We have already provided financial support for the victims of this terrible tragedy. This Budget sets aside a further £28 million to pay for community mental health support and to provide regeneration support for the area around Grenfell Tower and a new space for the local community to come together.

[Clive Efford]

Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Chancellor said yesterday about funds for fire safety precautions? Did he say that, where local authorities are told by an independent fire safety officer that sprinklers should be retrofitted in tower blocks, the Government will assist with paying for that to happen?

[Sajid Javid]

I thought the Chancellor was clear, but I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman by providing clarification. The Chancellor said that all local authorities need to do whatever is essential to keep their residents safe, which includes fitting sprinklers and anything else. If they receive such professional advice, they should of course follow it. If in doing so, they need to approach the Government for financial support, they should do so, and we will provide support.

Paradise Papers

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would not want the hon. Member for Eltham to get uber-excited; I call Mr Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Minister has set out the reasons why the eye-wateringly rich would benefit from a tax haven, but how would my average taxpayer in Eltham benefit from a tax haven and why should they tolerate this in overseas British territories?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman characterises those involved in overseas trusts as eye-wateringly rich, but I do not think all of them are; there are many pension funds, and there will be many who rely on those pension funds to live, and many of them might, indeed, live in his constituency. I think this general characterisation of it all being about super-wealthy people and all being about tax dodgers and so forth is rather crude, and, frankly, not worthy of the Opposition.