Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about interconnection between northern towns. It is worth pointing out that we are putting local and regional needs at the heart of the national productivity investment fund. That is why we are spending £1.1 billion on local projects to improve our existing transport networks.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

In the same vein, I congratulate the Economic Secretary to the Treasury’s local team on their success, and I hope that I will be joined in congratulating Livingston FC, who have also gained promotion.

On infrastructure spending, there is no doubt that Crossrail is an engineering feat, but it is costing nearly more than a third of Scotland’s national budget. When will we see more devolution of infrastructure funding—perhaps to fix some of the problems of the Minister’s colleagues?

[Mr Gauke]

Scotland benefits from the Barnett consequentials of investment in things such as HS2, which will provide a step change in rail connectivity along the east coast corridor, bringing significant benefits to the UK economy as a whole. However, we can afford to spend money on infrastructure only if we have a stable and strong economy to deliver it.

Ayrshire Growth Deal

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate. She spoke so well for her constituency and area that I felt like I was sitting through a 20-minute commercial from the Ayrshire tourist board, if there is such a thing, for the picturesque and beautiful area she has the honour to represent. I certainly found the gastronomic delights very interesting.

I am aware that the hon. Lady raised this matter in Treasury oral questions earlier this week and has recently written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the matter. She has clearly been working hard for her constituents in raising this matter at every possible opportunity, and I congratulate her on that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to answer this debate today.

As the hon. Lady and the House will know, the UK Government are committed to ensuring that all parts of the country have the tools to grow their local economies. As such, I am pleased that we now have the city deal that has been referred to, which is either in progress or in pre-negotiation for each and every one of Scotland’s seven cities. That is important. It was mentioned earlier, but I want to reiterate it. No other part of the United Kingdom has achieved that. Every one of Scotland’s seven cities now either has a city deal in progress or has one in pre-negotiation. That is an indication of the UK Government’s commitment to ensuring that all parts of the country have the tools to grow their local economies.

In Scotland, such deals are tripartite, meaning that the arrangements involve the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the local area in which they are active. Since 2014, the UK Government have worked well in partnership with the Scottish Government to agree three ambitious city deals, which cover the Glasgow city region, the Aberdeen city region, and Inverness and the highlands. It is worth noting that local leaders in those three areas believe that, once fully implemented, the deals will unlock significant new investment in Scotland. At the 2016 Budget, the UK Government committed to opening city deal negotiations with Edinburgh and south-east Scotland and those negotiations are now in progress. At the autumn statement, the UK Government similarly committed to opening negotiations with Stirling and Clackmannanshire and the Tay cities. Our priority now is to take forward this significant body of work, in partnership with the Scottish Government and all the relevant local authorities. Following the autumn statement, I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government will have more than £800 million of additional capital funding through to 2020-21 to support such proposals.

There is interest in other areas for further deals. It is of course open to the Scottish Government, given their devolved responsibility for economic development and using the significant resources available to them, to take forward projects to enable growth in places such as Ayrshire—that beautiful area—if they wish to do so. It is important to emphasise that the Scottish Government do have devolved responsibility for economic development. Significant resources are available to them—those resources have been increasing—enabling them to take forward projects, such as the one to which the hon. Lady refers, and to support growth in areas such as Ayrshire.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate and on speaking so passionately. The Minister will be aware that my constituency is one of the areas that is currently under discussion. Industrial areas such as mine and Ayrshire were damaged beyond recognition under the previous Conservative Government, so it is absolutely incumbent on him and his colleagues to ensure that those wrongs are righted by deals such as the one proposed for Ayrshire.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that characterisation. It is important to note that employment in North Ayrshire and Arran is up by 1,100 over the past year and by 300 overall since 2010, so things are clearly moving in the right direction.

HMRC Estate

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I did note that point, but I am not sure that I agree with how the hon. Lady has expressed what I said. Let me provide one example. Many HMRC local offices are in very old buildings. As I said, some are over 100 years old and many are from the 1950s. Then there is the latest digital infrastructure, and many more taxpayers are interacting with HMRC digitally, through more than 7 million personal tax accounts. As anybody knows, it is difficult to bring an old office up to modern standards with the right digital infrastructure. If we want to make sure that staff can make the best use of modern computer systems and put them at the service of customers who increasingly interact digitally, it is much better to do so in newer buildings that have been bought for the purpose and where we have planned that sort of arrangement from the start.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The Minister speaks of saving money and of modern offices. The HMRC offices at the Pyramids business park in my constituency are high-tech and high-end, with highly skilled staff, and there is plenty of further space. It would save the Government £70 million to keep that estate and develop it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the details and perhaps consider retaining the hub in West Lothian, rather than moving it to a city centre where rents will be more expensive?

[Jane Ellison]

I have had a number of conversations with, in particular, some of the hon. Lady’s colleagues who are based in Scotland, and I am, of course, always happy to meet any parliamentary colleague to discuss anything. No change in the plan for that regional centre is envisaged, but some of the challenges relating to West Lothian have been brought to my attention.

Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries) Bill

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The joined-up approach that I mentioned is not just within Departments; it comes about through international commitments that the Government have made to others. It is therefore good that we sign wider international treaties relating to development.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

“Trade over aid” was mentioned earlier. Many companies and organisations in the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland, will benefit from the Bill. The Glasgow film-maker Carol Cooke, who runs Scrumptious Productions, works with Barefoot in Business in Uganda to support grassroots women’s organisations and encourage women to run their own local businesses. The Bill will help more businesses of that kind, in the UK and specifically in Scotland, to go out to countries that are trying to develop their local economies.

[Roger Mullin]

That is a wonderful example. Double taxation treaties will benefit people in a wider sense—a cultural sense—although that is not stated in the Bill. If we can achieve fairer tax and fairer trade, along with mutual respect and more cross-pollination between countries than we have today, that, in its own modest way, will contribute to a more peaceful world. Generally, the more people engage with each other, the less likely they are to deal with each other in less than rational ways.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) on his choice of tie and on securing this debate—we are wearing remarkably similar ties today, although I am not sure whether that says more about him or me.

This is a really important debate, and there are two aspects to it. First there is looking back at some of the truly appalling practices carried out on behalf of banks, and secondly there is the forward-looking aspect of making sure that these mistakes are never repeated. I do not believe that the solutions that have been put forward will do that adequately.

Banking is clearly a cornerstone of our economy. The central role that it plays has been built on trust—businesses’ trust that their bank will deal with them responsibly, but also that the Government and the financial system will protect them if that relationship, for whatever reason, breaks down. That system may work for a large conglomerate—a major employer with the ability to go toe to toe with the banks in terms of litigation, affording lawyers and so on. However, for small or medium-sized enterprises, that relationship is skewed, and they stand to lose out because they cannot meet the might of the banks.

Let me just put that into perspective. I am sure that these numbers will not come as a surprise to anyone, but small and medium-sized enterprises account for 47% of turnover and 60% of employment in the private sector. That is a huge part of our economy, and one we must all be cognisant of, and we must provide the protection it requires.

How do we go about rebuilding the trust that has been lost? We have heard that the problem stretches across the length and breadth of the country and that different banks and sectors have been affected by malpractice. Will ad hoc arrangements address the problem? I do not believe they will, because the problem is not ad hoc; in large part, it is systemic, and we do not solve systemic problems with ad hoc fixes.

There is a temptation in this place, and in all walks of life, to find the simplest solution possible. In this case, that will not cut the mustard; we need to find a proper solution, and my hon. Friend’s suggestion of a commercial financial dispute resolution platform, whether that is a tribunal or something else, is a key part of doing that.

Like other hon. Members, I have constituents who have had issues in this respect, particularly with RBS and its Global Restructuring Group. While I have been sitting in the Chamber, a constituent—I do not feel comfortable naming them, and they have asked me not to—has messaged me about this. He said that, in the dealings his lawyer has had with RBS, the bank’s lawyers have said that these things are water off a duck’s back and that a bit of bad publicity now will not change how it operates. If that is the case, it suggests that, even when we have ad hoc solutions in place, they do not solve the ad hoc problems. That adds to the compulsion on us to find that systemic solution.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Perhaps I could name one of my constituents, Archie Meikle, of Ashwood Homes, who has given me permission to do so. I have fought on his behalf for over six months, and we have been waiting for responses from RBS after he was forced into the GRG. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way we can solve these problems and grow our economy is by making sure that our businesses are protected from programmes such as these, which are being pursued by the banks?

[Callum McCaig]

Unsurprisingly, I agree wholeheartedly. The importance of economic growth is tied into this. There are individual consequences to issues like these, but there are also whole-system economic problems that come from them.

Aberdeen is going through a difficult economic time as we speak, although I think we are beginning to see green shoots of recovery. However, we have not seen the problems associated with the previous financial downturn, and we may be in a beneficial situation. However, there is no systemic solution, and just because we do not have a problem now, that does not mean that there will not be problems in the future. The economic problem in Aberdeen has been particularly localised, but if it were to be repeated on a national level, the mistakes of the past could well creep back in. As the UK moves towards leaving the European Union, there is the risk of greater pressure on our financial and business systems, and the temptation may come back for banks to use the opportunity to make money on the backs of others. It is therefore incredibly pressing that we get this right.

The benefits of this proposal would be manifold. Rather than huge crises that we need to solve, we would have early intervention, and we would have parity between banks and companies, so that they could identify and solve problems early, without the need for massive recompense, as has been the case.

We have heard from many hon. Members today that it is very difficult to put a figure on the cost to business. It is even more difficult to calculate the cost to the economy of lost growth as a result of these problems. But let us come back to the human cost, which a number of Members have mentioned: the hours of grief, the hours of anguish and, in certain cases, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) mentioned, the lives that have been lost. That is the problem, and we can do something about it: we can protect our businesses. We can ensure best practice, and above all, we can ensure that the mistakes of the past are never repeated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

In that sense I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that ADR, as a concept, exists; we are asking not for a new beast to be created, but for an ADR forum to be specifically linked to the contracts and disputes under discussion. However, I am cynical about banks’ motivation in putting the clauses in particularly risky contracts.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who is also a colleague of mine on the Justice Committee, made a typically powerful speech in which he drilled home the perverse fact that the banks under discussion are in public ownership. Essentially, public funds are being used to push businesses against the wall and asset-strip them, which has consequences. It is very hard to accept that that is being funded by our taxpayers’ money. The right hon. Gentleman made that point extremely well.

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) touched on a stark irony when he referred to the old banking system in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I wholeheartedly agree with him that strict joint and several liability incentivised a good culture and good practice, but the pendulum has swung entirely in the other direction. I will come on to discuss the crux of the issue, which is banking culture, but he made that point well.

[Hannah Bardell]

On culture, a number of people dealt with my constituent over many months, and he felt that the culture being driven by the bank was not for the majority. We want to believe that most people who work in the banking sector are good people, but the culture being driven from the top of those organisations means that staff end up moving and are deeply dissatisfied at not being able to serve customers properly.

[Richard Arkless]

My hon. Friend will be unsurprised to hear that I completely agree with her. My experience is that, although many good people work in banks and we should not tar them all with the same brush, which we are inevitably tempted to do, banks see businesses and individuals in the retail sector as units to extract revenue from. Unless banking returns to being an ethical practice of looking after people’s interests, as opposed to extracting revenue, we will not make the vital cultural change necessary to sort out the issue.

I was particularly struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) said: even before a contention is raised, there is a reluctance to complain. Banks feel the inequality of arms before we even get to the courts or a dispute resolution system. I think that is a consequence of the public perception of the inequality of arms, and it has produced a fear factor. Clearly, an ADR system would go a long way to reducing that fear factor among SMEs.

That point was corroborated by the vice-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr). He also made a good point about the Financial Ombudsman Service and inconsistencies in the adjudication of retail banking issues. During my time at a bank, I had many dealings with the FOS, and I assure Members that it was possible to put to it two cases with exactly the same facts and circumstances and get two completely different results.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made an excellent and powerful speech, from which I took two points. The first was the effect on mental health and wellbeing, which is often forgotten about; we are not just talking about economic consequences. The second was whistleblowing, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin). The right hon. Member for North Norfolk will be pleased to hear that we intend to table two amendments to the Criminal Finance Bill. One will seek protection for whistleblowers, and the other will ask for a banking culture review. I would be grateful if he would consider them with his colleagues and perhaps support them in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Michelle Thomson) wowed this Chamber last week—I think that deserves a mention—and I do not think that any of us could have failed to be struck by her reference to the Komodo dragon. She attacked the underlying culture in banks and said how predatory they can be.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) made an excellent speech. I was particularly struck by her example—not a commercial case, but a retail case—of an ordinary individual whom the bank are accusing of going to another branch with identification and withdrawing money. Surely the complaints process could look at the closed circuit television and the FOS could be more inquisitorial in assessing the case. I hope that that message will go out.

When I worked for a bank and a retail customer threatened to take a matter to the FOS, we were told very clearly that that incurred a cost to the bank. I forget the exact figure, but it was between £400 and £600. When it got to that point, a quick calculation was made, and if the case could be settled at less than £600, that was what happened and the bank was not dragged through the FOS. That just demonstrates that we are units to extract revenue from, and nothing more.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), who was the first to say that the ADR system in itself will not fix the entire problem. He was absolutely right to mention culture. On RBS’s approach, he was told that this was water off a duck’s back, and that is absolutely true: these are actuarial, commercial calculations. The human cost is completely negated. A calculation is made of liability and potential cost, and the bank will take whichever is lower.

That concludes my summary. If I missed out any colleagues, I apologise. I agree that it would be a good idea to ease access to justice for SMEs that have contentious issues with large banks. That would make it cheaper and easier, and it would certainly help to equalise the inequality of arms. However, whether a case is considered by the FOS, a small claims court, a fast-track court, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or an ADR, it is the same case, with the same contract and the same terms and conditions, that will be considered from court to court, and if all those dispute resolution vehicles do their job, they ought to come to the same conclusion. Although that would be a welcome step, we need to go beyond that and look at the reasons the organisations were sold the products in the first place. That points to the culture perpetuated by the banks. If we can fix the culture and the over-aggressive mis-selling of products that businesses and retail customers simply do not understand, we will not end up in a situation where we need an ADR. Although I welcome the proposal, we need to change the culture in order to make a real difference.

Good Parliament Report

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

There are ways that different parties have done it without quotas, but the party that seemed to be most successful in making the biggest change here in Westminster was the Labour party, which had women-only shortlists. I have an automatic dislike of women-only shortlists. I do not like the idea. I just have an issue with it, but it is one of the few things that has been proven to work really well. Despite that gut reaction, if I think about it with my head, I realise that there are positive benefits. Looking at best practice across the UK and the world is an interesting and sensible way to go. Political parties will approach the issue in their own way, and it would be sensible for them to be allowed the leeway to do that. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, in Scotland we have made great changes. We have a gender-balanced Cabinet in the Scottish Parliament, and that is a positive step forward.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this fantastic debate. The points she has made are so relevant. On the matter of gender—she will correct me if I am wrong—is it not still the case that there are more men in Parliament today than there have ever been women since they were allowed to become MPs? As Rabbie Burns said:

“O wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us!”

People look at this Parliament and do not see society reflected back. We need a multi-pronged attack. Making some of the changes that Sarah Childs suggests in her report will encourage women, but we have to look at the issue across the board.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. It is pretty dire that the number of women ever elected is less than the number of current male MPs. It does not make sense. Although we have made positive changes, it is not enough. We need to go further. I do not think that is entirely within the gift of political parties; everybody needs to take responsibility. That is one of the really good things about the report: it gives the whole House the responsibility for a lot of its recommendations. Some specific responsibility is given to two political parties, and they will interpret that in their own ways, but the whole House needs to take ownership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

On the matter of artwork, I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. She will be aware of the work that I and other colleagues have done on this issue. Walking around the palace, it is full of mainly dead men of a different era, not even of today. The famous cupboard that Emily Wilding Davison hid in is hidden away from the public. There is no public representation of it. My hon. Friend makes a valid point about women being properly represented in all parts of Parliament.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Absolutely. There are only two statues of females that I can remember seeing around here—one of Queen Victoria and one of Margaret Thatcher. If that is it, we are not doing a very good job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Is it a bit further north? I used to spend a lot of time in Dyce when I worked for Asda. I am sorry it is not in the hon. Lady’s constituency, because it is a fine place.

When I first saw that this debate was taking place, my first question was, what is “The Good Parliament” report? After reading it, I rather wish I had not asked. It could be referred to as the “less accountable Parliament report” or the “dumbed-down Parliament report”, and it would certainly be better titled the “politically correct Parliament report”. There is not time to go into all the things that are wrong in the report, but I will pick out a few points in the limited time that I have.

The hon. Lady made the point that it is absolutely terrible that she cannot get up to her constituency on a Wednesday evening, and said that everything should be changed to allow her to do so. I checked, and in the 2015-16 Session of Parliament this House sat for 158 days out of 365. When people complain to me about Parliament, they say that none of us seems to be here when debates are taking place. I have never heard the complaint from the public that we are spending too much time here or that there are too many of us here during debates. I suggest to the hon. Lady that having 158 days to represent her constituency in Parliament is not too much to expect.

I am completely opposed to all-women shortlists and quotas. I could not care less if every single MP were a woman, if every position in Parliament were held by a woman or if everybody in the Cabinet were a woman. It is of no interest to me. As far as I am concerned, as long as they are there on merit, their gender is irrelevant. We should be gender-blind. I really think that the true sexists are the people who see everything in terms of gender. We should judge people not on the basis of their gender, but on the basis of their ability.

One thing I very much agree with the hon. Lady about is that we need more people from a working-class background in Parliament. One of the points I always made to the Conservative party when we were looking at things such as all-women shortlists—fortunately, we did not go down that route—was that replacing Rupert from Kensington and Chelsea with Jemima from Kensington and Chelsea does not do an awful lot for diversity in the House of Commons. Replacing Rupert from Kensington and Chelsea with Jim from Newcastle would do an awful lot more for diversity in the House of Commons than a tokenistic approach to diversity that sees things only in terms of simplistic diversity—gender or race.

[Hannah Bardell]

On the issue of gender quotas, we sometimes need to intervene to change things for the next generation. Would the hon. Gentleman concede that, as a short-term measure, in some cases gender quotas are useful?

[Philip Davies]

No, I certainly would not concede that point.

In the Conservative party, we had a female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, decades ago. She managed to get to the very top and stay there for an awful long time, and as far as I am concerned she was the best Prime Minister this country has ever had. I suspect that most people in this Chamber hate the fact that Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. When a woman actually got to be Prime Minister, they all hated it. Today, we have another female Prime Minister on the Conservative Benches without all this tokenistic claptrap, and she is also doing a fantastic job. It is rather patronising to say that women need all these extra things to help them get to the top; they do not. We do not need to be patronising to women. They are more than capable of rising to the top.

I find the idea that people can represent only people who are the same as them completely alien. There will be many women in my constituency who think I do a great job representing them in Parliament, and many women who think I do a terrible job. There will be many men who think I do a good job and many men who think I do a terrible job. What most people are concerned about is their representative’s views on issues: what their opinions are and the things they stand up for.

I can honestly say that, when I have been out canvassing during all my years in politics, people may have argued, agreed or disagreed with me about particular issues, but I have never yet had a person say to me that they would vote for me if I were a woman and that they would not vote for me because I am a man. Gender is irrelevant to the general public. They want their parliamentarians to stand up for the things that matter to them.

Being in Parliament is not a nine to five job. We pass laws that affect the country and we hold the Government to account. If we had nine to five days in Parliament, we would not be able to attend Select Committees if at the same time we wanted to be in the Chamber to attend debates or questions. There is lots to do as a Member of Parliament. It is very responsible work. The report is patronising and mostly full of claptrap. I want to make it clear that there is at least one dissenting voice. One day people might look back at this report and laugh, but for many of us at the moment it is not a laughing matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

The terms of the contract between HMRC and Concentrix are obviously in the public domain, and it is right that when performance is not as per the contract there are associated deductions, but I will be in a position to give the House more information about the contract in tomorrow’s Opposition day debate.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

A number of my constituents have been affected by this issue, not least a frontline police officer who had her benefits withdrawn, which meant her childcare could not be paid and she was potentially not going to be able to go to work. Luckily, my office intervened and we were able to get her benefits, but what is the Minister going to do to compensate people for upset and unjust treatment?

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

May I make a bit of progress, if that is all right? I have been very generous in giving way. I will try to give way later.

I want to speak about one of the other major features of the House of Lords: the deference—all the forelock-tugging to all these lords and ladies, and this idea of the high and mighty. We still have this political culture in the 21st century of showing deference to these people in ermine and of knowing your place and respecting your betters. Imagine designing a Chamber where that was still a feature of how we conducted our parliamentary debates.

I actually looked for the House of Lords TV channel the other day, and I came across the fantasy adventure “Game of Thrones” instead. I was listening to some of the language being used, and it struck me that the House of Lords is so like “Game of Thrones”, but without the dragons, beheadings and the proper bending of the knee— that is how ridiculous that institution down the road is. One of the first things we have to do is get rid of all this 13th-century, medieval deference and create a modern, 21st-century establishment, to make sure that we get proper representation in the second Chamber.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are countries around the world that we can learn from? Countries such as Australia, ironically enough, have upper Chambers that are based on ours, but they have managed to leap ahead and to have elected Chambers. Actually, the Queensland Parliament has abolished its upper Chamber, which is now a tourist attraction. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not make progress, we will fall behind in the world in terms of the democratic process?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would love to see that place as a tourist attraction. We could stuff some of its Members so that we could see them. They are all dressed like a demented Santa Claus. It would be fantastic: maybe we could have a Christmas fantasy or something as a feature of a visitor attraction. That is where we are, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

What is the Government’s intention when it comes to the House of Lords? Well, there seems to be only one ambition, and that is to stuff it full with even more cronies and donors. We have seen the latest additions. I do not know whether this is the Government’s intention—perhaps the Minister could clarify—but I get the impression they are trying to secure a majority in the House of Lords, because they are unhappy with the defeats they have experienced at its hands in the past few months. I have not done my sums properly on that, but I suspect that it would still involve another 30 to 50 new Members, taking its membership up to 900. That would bring it very close to overtaking the People’s Congress of China. Is that what the Government really intend to do?

At the same time—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—the Government seek to reduce the number of elected Members of this House. This House—this nation—should be appalled at that prospect; we should be demanding that it is addressed and reversed. How on earth can we, as a Chamber, agree to the idea of stuffing that place even fuller, while the Government reduce the number of representatives of the people—us, the directly elected Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am rapidly learning that, when it comes to road programmes and other transport infrastructure projects, it is for me to respond. We remain enthusiastic about improving our transport network, whether it be in the south-west of England or elsewhere.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Given the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year, does the Chancellor have plans to review the Financial Conduct Authority’s failure to enforce the prospectus rules in the Lloyd’s enhanced capital notes case? One of my constituents has been fighting hard for pensioners, who have lost over £3.3 billion.

[Mr Hammond]

As indeed have constituents of mine, so I am familiar with this case from the point of view of a constituency MP. I have not yet had a chance to look at it from the point of view of a Treasury Minister, but I promise the hon. Lady that I will do so.

HMRC: Building our Future Plan

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for bringing forward this debate. The issue of tax avoidance has obviously been highlighted in the House by the recent publicity over the Panama papers. It is beyond doubt that powerful individuals in the UK have been shamefully implicated in those documents. These people want to keep their offshore tax affairs a secret. Let us be quite clear: both rich individuals and organisations are using trusts and shell companies in places such as Panama and the British Virgin Islands for one purpose and one purpose only—they hide their financial assets from the tax authorities of the countries where they actually live and do business. It then becomes extremely difficult or, indeed, even impossible for tax collection agencies such as HMRC to collect accurate levels of tax on their wealth.

To be effective, HMRC requires the recruitment, training and retention of skilled and experienced tax professionals. They are the very people who make sure that the Government have enough money to pay for schools, hospitals and pensions. It is in this context that the current misguided reorganisation of HMRC needs to be understood.

Since the Government came to power in 2010, they have invested vastly greater resources in pursuing benefit fraud than in going after the real villains—those who funnel billions of pounds out of our country. Figures show that 10 times more Government inspectors are employed to investigate benefit misuse by the poorest in society than to deal with tax evasion by the wealthiest. The Public Accounts Committee report on tax fraud stated that a meagre 35 wealthy individuals are investigated for tax fraud each year. To put that in perspective, it is only slightly more than the number of Government Members who could be bothered to turn up in the Chamber today. HMRC does not even know how many of these individuals are actually prosecuted. We need to put that in the context of the fact that this country still presides over a tax gap of £34 billion, which we should move urgently to close.

I recently discovered that the ownership of the leases of HMRC offices—this has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend—was transferred to a company called Mapeley in 2001. You could not make this up, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where is Mapeley based? In the Bahamas. That is right: HMRC pays rent to a company registered in a tax haven. To quote the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, this Government have scored a “massive own goal”. Who stands to profit from the sales of HMRC local offices? You guessed it: Mapeley again. Why not use local council offices that may be available, and then any profits from the rents would go straight to the Treasury?

The UK Government intend to close 137 local HMRC offices across the UK. Two of them, Sidlaw House and Caledonian House, are in my Dundee constituency, where almost 800 staff are employed. This is of course driven by the Government’s austerity obsession, which means that the budgets for Departments and public bodies have suffered swingeing cuts. The Chancellor boasts of having increased the funding for HMRC, but it does not even come close to restoring the cuts he made in 2010. At this moment, about half as many people work for HMRC as did in 2005.

I have spoken in this Chamber before about HMRC and have tabled a number of questions, only to receive evasive and unhelpful answers. Employees, some of whom have more than 30 years’ skill and experience—decades of loyal service—are being abandoned by an organisation to which they dedicated their whole careers. At Caledonian House in Dundee alone, there are 10 couples working under the same roof. Those 10 couples could see their entire income disappear overnight. The proposals are set to destroy families’ lives.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Offices in my constituency are going to be moved to Edinburgh, as are many others in West Lothian. I am sure he will share my concern that the number of redundancies in February was the biggest ever across the civil service, and that carers and people with disabilities are being disproportionately affected by those compulsory redundancies. We should be doing all we can to support them and stand up for their jobs.

[Chris Law]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when this is still in consultation, the forced redundancies coming through are an absolute shame and embarrassment for all of us in this House.

Relocating HMRC to regional centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh will mean not only job losses in Dundee, but a loss of boots on the ground, and will diminish the capacity for public contact anywhere north. For example, Aberdeen has paid more than £300 billion from its oil resources into this Government, yet there is not going to be an HMRC office there, and the largest growing city in Europe, Inverness, will not have any representation —not to mention the rural areas in between. It is essential for HMRC to offer its clients access to skilled, trained staff based in the local area. Speaking from previous business experience, I know what a struggle it can be getting through to HMRC on the phone; what sort of business will we come to expect? I have to share a story I have heard just in the past 10 minutes: one of my colleagues has tried eight times to pay a bill that is due and still cannot get through.

No one in their right mind would argue that it would make sense to have just two huge hospitals in Scotland, one in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow. If the NHS can maintain internationally recognised standards of service in thousands of clinics and hospitals around the country, surely it is possible for HMRC to do the same in a network of fewer than 200 local offices.

To return to my earlier point, the Panama papers have dramatically drawn attention to a fact that has been emphasised over and over again in this House, by colleagues from all parties, namely that sufficient resources need to be dedicated to HMRC so that it can scrutinise sources of income to ensure that the tax due is paid. It is clear that to do this we need HMRC offices all over the UK, staffed by experienced tax officers with local knowledge. No one would ridicule the Government for making a U-turn on HMRC’s Building our Future plan.

HMRC has the potential to become a paradigm of self-sufficiency, a public service that pays for itself. That idea is certainly less far-fetched and counter-intuitive than the measures currently set to be put in place, which are designed to boost, yet again, the income of companies based in offshore tax havens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this debate. There have been plenty of thoughtful and, indeed, robust contributions so far, with Members—notably all on this side of the House—doing their best to scrutinise the general principles behind HMRC’s proposals as well as individual local proposals. I shall add my tuppence-worth in a moment. What shines through in this debate is the frustration, which I share, at not having enough information or attempts at justification to enable us to do our job of scrutinising the proposals thoroughly at a strategic and local level.

Whatever view people might take of these proposals, they are certainly radical. As we have heard, thousands of jobs could be lost and a 93% cut in the number of HMRC offices could be implemented. This is not tinkering around the edges in any way, shape or form. It is therefore not only right but imperative to ask questions about how such cuts and closures will impact on HMRC’s ability to collect taxes and tackle tax dodging, particularly at a time of huge public concern over that issue in the light of the Panama papers. It is right that we should ask about the consequences for the towns and cities in which tax offices are marked for closure. It is also absolutely right that we should pose some of the many questions that the hard-working, dedicated and expert staff in our constituencies have raised.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer some of our questions today, but I must emphasise that debates alone will not be enough. We need the people behind these proposals to come here to explain them directly to Parliament. That would allow Members to get stuck into the nuts and bolts and to get behind the management-speak and buzzwords that are too often passed off as answers. If that does not happen, staff and taxpayers will be left questioning whether HMRC is really “building our future”, as the glossy brochure states, or whether this is in fact a question of buildings forcing our future. It has already been pointed out that this is taking place in the context of the expiry of the extraordinary contracts that were entered into in 2001, when 600 or so properties were sold to the offshore company, Mapeley Steps, and then leased back, PFI-style, to HMRC. Those contracts expire in the years leading up to 2021. In the absence of answers to our questions, many will conclude that this is more about digging HMRC out of the hole that it jumped into in 2001, rather than being about any kind of strategy. That is the only conclusion open to us.

The remaining questions are many and varied, but I shall get down to the basics of the issue. Why is 13 the magic number? Why are 13 offices preferable to 30 or 530? Why is the sensible range of hub sizes calculated at 1,200 to 6,000 staff? And if that size of office is perfectly efficient, why should offices such as Cumbernauld, which are within that range, have to close? Does the proposed configuration take suitable account of the expertise and local knowledge that can be built up by having a presence across the country? For example, the offices in Aberdeen and Inverness have experts in oil and fishing. And does it take into account the expertise that will be lost through employees being unable to travel to new locations?

The brochures and press releases tell us that saving £100 million a year by 2025 is apparently the goal. We are told:

“Moving more of HMRC’s work out of central London, which has some of the world’s most expensive office space, will enable HMRC to make substantial savings”.

How has that figure been calculated, particularly when HMRC does not know exactly where the new hubs will be? And how is the idea of moving out of expensive city centre locations consistent with closing offices in Cumbernauld, East Kilbride and Bathgate, for example, and centralising them in big prime city centre sites in Glasgow and Edinburgh? Can we see the sums?

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. On the specific issue of centralisation, virtually no work has been done in my constituency of Livingston to assess the impact of the proposals in relation to transport and travel. The distance between Livingston and Edinburgh is relatively short, but what about the people in Dundee who will be expected to travel? Is it not clear that this is an ill-conceived and ill-thought-out proposal?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely.

We want to see the sums and the justifications for the proposals. Will each of these local decisions be revisited if the sums do not add up? Has the effect on local communities been factored into HMRC’s considerations? Does it feature at all? I have had a similar experience to that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), in that when I asked the Minister about this, his written answer stated simply that HMRC

“will undertake all necessary consultations and impact assessment work to inform”

its plans. No one is suggesting that any town or city where a public sector office is based can assume that the office will be there forever, but it is far from unreasonable to say that the local economic impact of office closures will be a significant factor in decision making, so what weight has been attached to that?

Most important to me and many MPs here are the questions of our constituents—the dedicated, skilled staff in the tax offices. They want to know whether jobs are moving with them or whether they are moving to new roles in a new location. HMRC claims that people will be better able to develop careers up to senior level, but my constituents fear that their good-quality roles will be replaced with poorer-quality work. How did HMRC calculate that 90% of employees will be within reasonable daily travel? Not only does it not know where offices will be, but reasonableness of travel does not just depend on distance but transport links, parking spaces, and accessibility. Will those issues be assessed on an individual basis?

For other staff, including a good number in my constituency, challenges arise through disabilities and care commitments. Why has HMRC not undertaken a proper equality impact assessment of its proposals? Why did HMRC change its HR policy in February 2016, particularly when redundancies were on the horizon, so that union members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, were no longer entitled to take a trade union rep to one-to-one discussions?

Most concerning are the questions around the 152 compulsory redundancy notices that have been served. How can they be genuine redundancies given that the work that the employees are doing is continuing, that there are no immediate plans to close the offices, and that the Department has recruited over 1,000 new staff in other locations at the same grades? What is the explanation for that? Why will HMRC’s chief executive not meet the Public and Commercial Services Union about alternatives to compulsory redundancy? How can all that be happening while HMRC is apparently spending £1 million a month on overtime to mask staffing shortfalls?