Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household (Jeremy Quin)]

I beg to move,

That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mr Peter Blausten be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 27 January 2020 to 26 January 2025.

The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is not a conventional Committee of this House. It is a statutory Committee, and its establishment, role and membership are determined by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended. The Committee has two responsibilities: first, to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following a fair and open competition, for the posts of Chair and members of IPSA; and secondly, to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources.

The legislation sets out the membership of the Committee, which comprises the Speaker, the Leader of the House, the Chair of the Standards Committee, five further Members and three lay members. The three lay members have full voting rights. They were added to the Committee under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, following a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They are intended to bring an external view and provide greater transparency and independence in the exercise of the Committee’s statutory functions.

The motion before the House seeks to appoint Mr Peter Blausten as a lay member to succeed Bronwen Curtis CBE, whose term will end in January 2020. Ms Curtis has served the Committee and the House diligently, and I know that Mr Speaker and the other members of SCIPSA would wish to place on record their gratitude for her advice and service.

The motion seeks approval for the appointment of Mr Blausten to take effect from 27 January 2020 for a period of five years. At the Speaker’s request, the recruitment panel was chaired by Dr John Benger, then Clerk Assistant. The other panel members were: Sir Hugh Bayley, formerly the Member for York Central; Michelle Barnes, an independent HR consultant; and Mike Page, HR business partner in the House of Commons Service. The board was assisted by a specialist recruitment agency, and the recruitment process involved stages of advertisement, longlisting, shortlisting and interview.

The candidate named in the motion, Mr Peter Blausten, is a former FTSE 30 and 250 group HR director and civil service commissioner. He is currently a partner in Alvarez & Marsal, an international management consultancy. The interviewing panel concluded that Mr Blausten’s analytical approach and experience as a human resources director would support and greatly assist the Speaker’s Committee in its dual role of scrutinising IPSA’s estimate and overseeing the recruitment of new IPSA board members.

The statute requires that the motion is tabled with the agreement of the Speaker, and I can confirm that the Speaker has signified his consent. I have been assured that this process met the requirements of statute, and I hope that the House will support Mr Blausten’s appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank the shadow Leader for her kind words directed at the panel, Bronwyn Curtis and also me, for that matter. I am most grateful. It is very kind of her. I am also grateful for her support for the motion.

I was delighted that the House was able to hear from three other members of SCIPSA. We are indebted to the work they do on our behalf in serving on the Committee: my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). It was great to hear them, with their personal experience, thanking Ms Curtis for her work and her service. I think that they all mentioned the importance of lay members of SCIPSA understanding all aspects of MPs’ role and the importance of SCIPSA getting it right. I know that is invaluable for their work of studying the IPSA estimates. I trust that Mr Blausten will do just that, if this House is pleased to agree to his appointment. It was a great pleasure to move the motion.

Question put and agreed to

Summer Adjournment

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Jeremy Quin)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and to reply from the Treasury Bench.

This afternoon’s debate took place at a time when the Westminster hothouse was even hotter than normal—over 39° C. Hon. Members will I am sure be keen to return to their communities to serve their constituents in cooler climes and, I hope, with cooler temperatures. Not all of us, however, can boast the sun, the sea and the splendid ice cream of which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is so justly proud.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) reminded us in her speech yesterday that our primary role in this place is to do the best to look after our constituents. I thought that point was encapsulated very well by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), but it was apparent in all the passionate contributions made this afternoon by all the Members present. I am just sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my winding up cannot possibly do them all the justice they deserve.

I found out to my surprise the other day that some Members in our sister Parliament in Canberra sit for constituencies named after people rather than geography. If the same principle applied to our parliamentary procedures my vote would be—the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood alluded to this—for the evening Adjournment debate to be referred to as “the Strangford”, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has made this particular debate his very own. We always await his contribution with interest and he never disappoints either this House or the many constituents whose problems he brings before us. I recall being taught at school that without cities, civilisation could not rise. It is similarly axiomatic that without hearing of Southend’s claim to be a city, this House could not rise either.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend raised many points that will be best answered, I fear, by the Departments concerned, but I was glad to hear him talk about school funding, which is a very active issue in my Horsham constituency as well. I hope that, like me, he was encouraged by the positive and robust comments made by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is a dashing Member of the House and it is no surprise to hear that he joined the police in a successful raid on drugs perpetrators. He also raised the importance of housing regulations, particularly in the context of environmental standards. That passion is shared by the Government. I remind him of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) in the last Budget and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to push on this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the dreadful issue of trafficking and prostitution—an issue that was brought home to me by the charity Streetlight in my constituency. I understand that her report on this was launched at 4 o’clock this afternoon. I admire her for being in her place; it is a fine example of multi-tasking in this Chamber.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) always speak with such passion and effectiveness on behalf of their constituencies and of Scotland as a whole. I visited my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling in his constituency—it was a great pleasure—and I look forward to visiting Moray in due course and hearing more about the benefits of the city deal.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) spoke with great passion about an issue in his constituency on which he is hugely engaged. He has put his developers firmly on notice.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), on 3 April this year, we celebrated the first anniversary of his Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 coming into force. He spoke again on homelessness, among other issues, and we all value the contribution that he has made on homelessness. He said that the House will rise with a zing in its step this afternoon after the tremendous performance of the Prime Minister—a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree, but not every Opposition Member might.

Turning to Opposition Members, there were many great speeches on the other side of the House this afternoon. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), the chairman of the all-party group on charities and volunteering, said in a brilliant speech that she would be satisfied if, as a result of her contribution, just one person started helping the RAF Benevolent Fund. I am certain, having listened to her speech, that it will have been far more effective than that.

Turning to my Sussex colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), one of the highlights of the parliamentary year for me was listening to his Adjournment debate back in November, on World AIDS Day, when he spoke with such passion. He raised a point of great passion again today—his schools—and I would love to debate it with him. Now is not the moment, but I am certain that he will pursue that in his normal, assiduous way.

The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) made a speech of two halves. I preferred the first half—the optimistic half—but he spoke with great passion throughout. I know—because I know him—that whatever his views on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he will bear no ill will or ill harm to any Member of this place, but the hon. Gentleman made his point in his customary manner.

I had the privilege of briefly serving under the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) when he was a Minister in the Treasury. He had a reputation then as being a courteous, detailed and effective Minister. He is clearly deploying the same skills in this place on behalf of his constituent—a case that seems very strange and which I am sure he will continue to pursue.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) spoke movingly of those facing alcohol dependency issues and the importance of the alcohol charter.

The hon. Members for Keighley (John Grogan) and for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) expressed the passion of many—of all our constituents—on the issue of climate change. The hon. Lady, in particular, referred to the challenges being faced by those in the developing world because of climate change, which affects us all.

The hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), and for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), and indeed the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), in his summing up on behalf of the Scottish National party—I remember vividly replying to his maiden speech all those years ago—all spoke about or touched on universal credit. I am familiar with many of the issues that they raise, not least through the Horsham District food bank and Citizens Advice in my constituency. Universal credit is a better system than that which preceded it, but that does not mean that it cannot be improved. I urge all hon. Members to continue to raise, as I know they do, individual cases with the Department concerned.

The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) forcefully called on the Government to look again at avoidable deaths from epilepsy, in the context of a constituent who had suffered a personal loss. I hope, as does he, that real good can come out of her campaign, and out of the tragedy to which he referred.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke with great knowledge—and pith, which was very welcome in this debate—on pension mis-selling. I am sorry that the knowledge is the result of a dreadful scam having been inflicted, it appears, on his constituents and members of the British Steel pension scheme. We all utterly condemn the scammers. I am sure that we will hear much more from him on this subject.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) made a compelling speech on Ukraine and Russia, and was supported in that by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who followed him, and who also raised concerns about the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust that I am sure will have been heard by the relevant Department.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East spoke with passion about the imminent closure of the Caley railway works in his constituency. I wish him well in his discussions with the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remain in close contact with my hon. Friends in Government.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), with whom it is a pleasure to serve on the all-party parliamentary group on credit unions, spoke effectively, as ever, on a range of issues regarding housing in Tower Hamlets—a subject that he always speaks on with great authority, and will continue to do so. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) speaks well on behalf of her constituents; today she chose a broader theme and a global outlook, but spoke with equal passion, determination and force.

We heard a little bit of history from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She put her hopes for the future of the beautiful city that she represents in the context of its deep historical roots as Eboracum and Yorvik. She spoke passionately of York as a living, breathing, vibrant city, where planning works on behalf of all York’s citizens.

Many hon. Members will be very aware of the benefits to school students of a proper diet and breakfast. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke convincingly and with great knowledge of what sounds like a tremendous scheme in her constituency, and with huge passion on the Shooting Star children’s hospice. As she pointed out, no Adjournment debate would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Just for fun, and for our benefit, he contributed in both English and Ulster Scots, and we were grateful for it. He revelled in his passion for the land, and raised the acute issues faced by many of his constituents who work on it. We were grateful for his contribution.

Many hon. Members raised the dreadful plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Even while we are not sitting, she and her family will firmly remain in our thoughts, as the Foreign Office continues to work on their behalf. There were many valuable points raised that I regret I have not had time to address; I am sure that they will be spotted and picked up by the Department concerned. It remains for me to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers, the Clerks, and all the officers of this House for all their work—all the officers who keep us informed, briefed, fed and watered, and, above all, safe.

My hon. Friend Member for Southend West referred to the importance of education. We will all have had teachers who helped guide us here. I think of one of my English teachers as I wish all hon. Members a brief

“time for frighted peace to pant”,

as we prepare for fresh-winded “accents of new broils” when this House resumes. Have a good summer.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. May I, on behalf of all the occupants of the Chair, wish all hon. Members a busy but peaceful recess—not a holiday. I also want, on behalf of us all, to thank everyone who works here in the Palace of Westminster. You work so hard to make our work easier, and we really appreciate everything that you do to support us. We hope that you all have peaceful and happy holidays.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are looking closely at the shared prosperity fund to make sure that it delivers best value for money right across the UK, and I am in discussions with the Welsh Secretary about that.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

What is my hon. Friend’s reaction to the FCA report on doorstep lending, and does it go far enough?

[John Glen]

The report is a welcome step forward, and I note the provision that is made for further steps if the proposed measures do not have an effect. I will be meeting Andrew Bailey tomorrow morning to discuss it further.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point: there is little point in land that has planning consent if properties are not swiftly built on it. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is conducting a review of exactly that matter, and we will come to the House in due course with our proposals.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Horsham has very high house price multiples, and I welcome the Government’s efforts to help first-time buyers with that vital first step on the ladder. I also welcome the impact of that policy from a macroeconomic perspective. The Financial Policy Committee at the Bank of England has talked about broadening home ownership as a way of encouraging and improving financial stability. That should have an important impact, which I also welcome.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. As well as the many advantages and benefits of home ownership for individuals, society and the economy, his point about financial stability is right and another reason why the Government are determined to make progress.

Spring Statement

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady will know, I think, that we also announced—again, this is due to come in in April—record increases in the youth rates of the minimum wage. We have had several exchanges in this Session about the importance of maintaining low levels of youth unemployment and about the devastating effects of youth unemployment—[Interruption.]. I am sorry if she does not like this. The Government take advice from the Low Pay Commission about the impacts of different pay rates on employment prospects, and we balance the need to give people a fair wage with the need to maintain high levels of youth employment, in the interests of those people themselves and of our economy.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I welcome the projection that real wages will increase in the coming year, but that can continue in the longer term only if we improve our productivity. In that context, may I welcome not only what the Chancellor has said about human capital and long-term endeavour, but the improvements in productivity over the last six months?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to two quarters of very good productivity data. I do not want to change policy or to pivot on the basis of two quarters’ data, because data can be revised, but we are starting to think that we might just be at the beginning of a turn in the trajectory of productivity performance in this economy.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis]

I will continue.

As many Members will know, the stories keep coming, backed up by evidence. It is now clear that we are seeing not just a series of individual scandals, but a full, systemic failure that needs to be addressed by the House.

Let me now focus on how we can move forward. The APPG on fair business banking has identified a series of achievable and transformative objectives that will support our business community. My focus today, however, will be on dispute resolution, restitution, and the need for an independent financial services tribunal with the teeth that will enable it to tackle complex and, for the individuals involved, life-changing scenarios.

I want to touch briefly on the past, because it is important to separate the crises into two distinct phases. The first crisis, in 2007-08, was a crisis of liquidity. The second, which we are discussing today, is a conduct crisis that not only spans the financial services industry, but extends to the role of the professional advisers who are such an integral part of the system. They are Law of Property Act receivers, surveyors, accountants, insolvency practitioners and solicitors. They are all fundamental parts of this matrix, and I will return to them shortly.

The recent section 166 FCA report on RBS GRG concentrates on the years between 2008 and 2013, when banks were under extreme pressure to shore up their balance sheets. However, that behaviour did not spring up spontaneously. Senior banking insiders who worked in RBS between the mid-1990s and the crisis are clear that there was such a modus operandi in GRG for years before the liquidity crisis. Indeed, GRG and its predecessor, Specialist Lending Services, had been known as the “mortuary for businesses” since the late 1990s. During those heady days of liquidity, businesses might have had an opportunity to re-bank with competitors, but once the liquidity crisis hit, that was no longer an option Ever since then our business community has had to deal with the consequences, which have been ramped up to an industrial scale.

Although the title of the debate refers to RBS GRG, it is just a symptom of the underlying issues. In the course of the APPG’s work, it is hard to identify an institution that has not found itself at the centre of a conduct scandal, and I am sure that other Members will give many examples today. The APPG has come across similar instances among the major banking institutions. The HBOS Reading fraud, as a result of which bankers and their associates were jailed for a total of 47 years earlier this year, may seem easy to push aside as “a few bad apples”, but, in reality, it is a consequence of the same systemic failure.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Lewis]

I will make some progress first.

In the HBOS case, as with GRG, quite simply, everyone thought that they would not get caught, and so it escalated. We have to ask ourselves how it is possible that this has gone on for so long, completely unchecked. We should have caught it much sooner, but instead it has been left to a dedicated group of individual victims such as Paul and Nikki Turner—and to a relentless pursuit by journalists such as Andy Verity, Joe Lynam, Siobhan Kennedy, James Hurley, Jonathan Ford, Ruth Sunderland, Tom Warren, Ian Fraser and Heidi Blake, to name just a few—to keep the issue alive. That is the journalism that the British public need: journalism that investigates the acts of the powerful and holds them to account. It is the fourth estate playing its rightful role in a healthy, functioning democracy.

Even now, as we begin to get our heads around the issue, we are still not addressing it properly. Why? Because our response thus far has been piecemeal. We must take a step back, and look at the entire ecosystem in which such behaviour managed not just to survive, but to thrive.

Let me briefly remind the House of the possible scale of the scandal. At its peak, GRG held assets of more than £90 billion on its books—all the businesses that were put into special measures. We cannot know for sure how many of those businesses would have survived in another, more benign environment; that is a “how long is a piece of string” question. Indeed, some businesses were placed in GRG for no other reason than the fact that they had made a complaint against the bank. We have to ask ourselves how many of them should have been there in the first place.

Much has been made of the fact that the businesses were “distressed”, but that is a subjective and ambiguous term. We do know that 90% of GRG-administered businesses never made it back to mainstream banking. That is a very high proportion. The cost is immeasurable, but we believe it to be in the tens of billions. Let us be clear: that is the potential size of the injustice that has taken place in our country. If it is indeed that big, it may be the largest theft anywhere, ever. If we begin to take into account the opportunity costs to the economy of business failure and businesses that have been unable to grow—if we begin to include the loss of jobs, homes, health, relationships and taxes—we see that the costs are likely to be immeasurable.

Scandals on this scale cannot happen in a vacuum. The role of Law of Property Act receivers, solicitors, insolvency practitioners and surveyors must be considered. Even in circumstances in which every person playing a part has played to the letter of the law, the outcomes have been catastrophic. We have to ask ourselves how that is possible.

As things stand, a business owner understandably assumes that the whole system works effectively, and that when it fails, he or she will have access to justice. That is a logical assumption for those of us who believe that all aspects of our lives should be covered by the rule of law. Anything else is little better than the Wild West, and is no basis for the stable and successful economy that Members in all parts of the House want to see.

The House must tackle the inherent inequality of power in the relationship between businesses and their lenders. From the moment when a business signs a one-sided contract laden with onerous and ambiguous contractual terms, through its life cycle, and into—potentially—insolvency, there is nowhere independent and affordable for that business to go if it is in dispute with its lender. In all cases, businesses must rely on the limited scope of the financial ombudsman, various trade associations and individual institutions to handle complaints. What is the outcome? The public, and businesses, see a group of large, powerful institutions and trade bodies operating from behind castle walls, with no transparency or external accountability, save an expensive and prohibitive court process that is beyond all but the most well-resourced. Justice, for them, is out of reach, and RBS knows that.

When ad hoc redress schemes are set up to deal with scandals such as interest rate hedging products, GRG and HBOS Reading, they are wholly unsatisfactory and largely discredited. They appear to be a cynical exercise in limiting financial institutions’ liabilities rather than a genuine attempt at restitution. The fact that the entire exercise is conducted behind closed doors and the banks are allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner only fuels suspicion. The use of an “independent person”, whom the bank itself appoints, will never instil trust. It is akin to a burglar being allowed to pick the members of the jury for his trial.

To add insult to injury, in the cases of the interest rate hedging product scheme and the RBS GRG scheme, the fact that insolvency law allows the institutions to pay themselves back for their own misconduct brings the process into the realm of farce. It is a system that does not instil confidence. The best our institutions can say is, “Trust us, we’re doing the right thing; but if you don’t like it, sue us.” We have only to look at the content of the debate today to see that self-regulation alone is simply not enough.

I want to be clear: those of us who support this motion are not calling for extensive regulation. We are, however, calling for accountability, transparency and justice, because without proper transparent accountability there can be no trust. Ultimately, trust is what the financial sector depends upon; if we undermine and pollute it, it will never survive in the long run.

The cold fact is that right now in this country the trust that once existed has been shattered. This distrust has become so severe that it is affecting business confidence and productivity. The Government’s own industrial strategy cannot be delivered on these shaky foundations. Simply, if we are to move on, we need to get a handle on the issues and look at the whole ecosystem for our businesses. That is why today we are calling for an inquiry that cuts across departmental lines and looks at the protections afforded to businesses during their life cycle. That way we can map out a long-term plan to ensure sufficient safeguards to prevent such things from ever happening again. More urgently, we are calling for a tribunal system to be set up to deal with financial disputes, a system analogous to that which already exists for employment tribunals. That does not require any primary legislation. The legislation already exists to enable the rapid establishment of a tribunal; it just needs the political will to carry it through.

Andrew Bailey at the FCA has openly supported the tribunal idea, but we are concerned about the recent focus on extending the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service as this is not the right solution for what is a very complex problem. Once established, this tribunal system will help to ensure that banking works better, not just in the interests of its customers, but for the banking industry itself. This is important because we all acknowledge that the financial sector is critical to the UK’s future prosperity, and the relationship that SMEs have with their bank is a central part of that. In an effectively regulated economy, the relationships between SMEs and the finance sector should be symbiotic, not parasitic; each supports the sustainable growth and the success of the other. But that is not where we are.

It is time that the Government, the FCA and Parliament step up to the plate to ensure that businesses get fair treatment and access to affordable justice. Our businesses deserve nothing less. Our economy requires nothing less, especially at this critical time with Brexit approaching.

This matter has been left to drift in the regulatory and legislative wilderness for too long. The consequences have been catastrophic not only to individual lives but to confidence in our entire financial system. In the wake of Brexit, the introduction of a tribunal system will help to rebuild the strong relationships that once existed between SMEs and their banks, helping the growth of our economy and the international reputation of our financial sector.

It is, however, important to say that constructive progress has been made. The banking futures project brought together stakeholders across the spectrum to produce a coherent and ambitious plan for rebuilding trust. If Members have not read it, I would certainly suggest that they do so. The all-party group on fair business banking and finance has formed a working group, which will be formally announced in the near future, to discuss and look at this area. We should have no doubt that this is an important first step for businesses and industry, but it is just one part of the jigsaw, for with a problem this big, only a systematic, open-minded challenge to the status quo will work for businesses, our banks and our economy. This is an opportunity for us to show the business community and, indeed, the country that behind the lively exchanges that take place here and are seen on television, we as parliamentarians can put aside political point scoring and come together and work toward a common goal. I therefore commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing the debate. It is also a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).

For me, the most alarming aspect of the whole issue of the banking sector’s treatment of SMEs is the conspiracy of denial that has existed between banks and their professional advisers. That has been reinforced by the very institutions that are supposed to regulate the financial sector. My constituent Mr Kash Shabir is a victim of what is at the very least grossly unethical practice—it is much more likely to be criminal fraud—at the hands of Lloyds bank, the same bank that was behind the HBOS Reading fraud. His case is a lead case, having formed the backbone of an inquiry by the then Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in March 2015, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and of two Westminster Hall debates that I led, on 16 September 2015 and 18 April last year.

When lending to Mr Shabir was no longer attractive to Lloyds after the financial crash, it reneged on its lending commitment, relying on an alleged breach of the loan to value covenant. That breach was then justified by a down-valuation of his property portfolio, which was worth in excess of £10 million. The valuation was provided by Alder King LLP, a firm of chartered surveyors whose employees were embedded in Lloyds bank and then rewarded with lucrative LPA—Law of Property Act 1925—work. The substantial evidence that I have considered over the past three years leads me to conclude that criminal acts have taken place, followed by a cover-up by the parties concerned.

The senior management of Lloyds, Alder King and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have all refused to meet me and Mr Shabir to discuss his case. None of them has the guts to sit in a room with me and my constituent to listen to his legitimate complaint. The approach taken—primarily by Lloyds, but also by Alder King—has been to use the gross power imbalance that exists between SMEs and the big banks to bully and belittle SME victims to the point at which at least one victim has taken his own life. The big banks hold all the power. They have an army of expensive lawyers. They obfuscate and delay, knowing that if they keep batting away their victims’ complaints and concerns, those individuals will eventually capitulate because they have no other choice.

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. She and the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) have both referred to the HBOS Reading case, in which guilty verdicts were delivered on 30 January last year. Does she share my concern, and that of my constituents who have been affected by this, that there has still been no settlement with Lloyds bank a year after those verdicts were delivered? This reinforces what the hon. Lady is saying.

[Jo Stevens]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Statutory limitation periods are run down through deliberate delays by the banks. They know that they hold all the financial cards. How can any of their victims afford to litigate to seek proper redress when they have already lost their businesses and homes as a consequence of the banks’ actions?

Budget Resolutions

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker. I will try to curtail my remarks with that in mind. I know that many Members want to contribute to this debate.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall). Rather like the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) about the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), I may not agree with what the hon. Lady says, but she speaks with passion and verve and I understand her direction of travel. I do not want to embarrass her or her colleague, but I contrast that with what the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, which reminded me of a modern artist—a lot of noise and colour, but no discernible theme.

Every Member on both sides of the House wants good public services. They want them to be well supported and to deliver for our constituents. Like the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) and others, I welcome the slight fiscal loosening over the next two to three years as recognition of the needs of our public sector. I am not going to prejudge independent pay reviews but—who knows?—perhaps that will give extra leeway in that direction as well. That is right and appropriate, but it is also right that it is executed in the context of a broader, macro-plan for bringing our national debt under control.

According to my back-of-an-envelope forecasts, we will reduce our deficit to its 2001 level, when the Labour party was in government. That was the last year in which it had very sensibly allowed its fiscal envelope to be dictated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). From next year, our total debt as a percentage of GDP will begin to decline—a signal point in our resolving the fiscal hole of historic proportions that we inherited. Reducing that deficit is not glamorous or popular, but it is necessary. It is necessary to build up resilience to future shocks; for our annual interest payments, which are about 50% of what we spend every year on the NHS; and on the grounds of simple fairness to future generations.

To maintain that progress of debt reduction and to sustain our investment in the public services that we all cherish, the Chancellor is absolutely right to focus on our productivity puzzle. I respect the OBR’s economic forecasts, which have been referred to frequently this afternoon. Personally I feel more optimistic as to the pace of growth. They are forecasts: they go up and they go down. That is in the nature of forecasting. As the OBR itself says:

“The outlook for potential…productivity is the most important, yet most uncertain, element of”

productivity output growth. The OBR is, of course, right on both counts. That is why I applaud the Chancellor’s robust stance on embracing the new technologies, harnessing the UK’s lead in innovation and building up our productivity growth.

We have an excellent record on employment, both in my Horsham constituency and nationally, with 1,000 jobs a day being created since 2010. Our challenge as a country—it is also a challenge globally, but it is particularly acute in the UK—is to ensure that those employees receive the investment, education, infrastructure and support that will allow us to drive our productivity and enhance further economic growth.

I welcome those measures in the Budget that are directly aimed at long-term improvements in our productivity, including targeting the new technologies, a further £2.3 billion for R and D, and a further enhancement to the R and D tax credit, helping to lift R and D investment to our target of 2.4% of GDP. As someone who sees the UK as a liberal country open to the world, I am delighted by the approach laid out in the Red Book for attracting and retaining the best scientific talent from anywhere in the world to work and flourish here in the UK.

On education, to which the hon. Member for Leicester West referred, I warmly welcome the new approaches. Horsham boasts excellent schools that place huge importance on STEM subjects, and voluntary organisations such as HackHorsham provide extra resources to young people who want to embrace those new technologies.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I interrupt my former constituency chairman to say that I know the hon. Gentleman extremely well and he speaks in his mellifluous tone with great eloquence. He is capable of doing so at any length, short or long, but I know that, being a courteous fellow, he will want to have regard to the simmering temperature of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), who is to follow him, and other colleagues who also wish to contribute. Therefore, I think I speak with some confidence in saying that his peroration is nigh.

[Jeremy Quin]

I take the hint, Mr Speaker, and I promise I will be brief. Education—I welcome it, and I certainly welcome the infrastructure spend on transport and housing. This is a wide Budget with a lot to commend it; it addresses the problems of the past while setting out the foundations for the future. I am sorry that I am not able to entertain the House at any greater length, but it is perfectly fair that others should have their shout. With that, I commend the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman will welcome the Government’s record investment of £500 million in T-levels, to tackle exactly the issue that he has raised in technical education. The Government’s commitment can also be seen in apprenticeships. Whereas under the last Labour Government there were just 280,000 apprenticeship starts, there were more than half a million last year under this Government.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

16. What effect the reduction in corporation tax rates has had on receipts from that tax.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

Since 2010 the headline corporation tax rate has been cut from 28% to 19%. Despite that, onshore corporation tax receipts have increased by more than 50%, from £36.2 billion in 2010-11 to £55.1 billion in 2016-17.

[Jeremy Quin]

According to KPMG, we have the second-most competitive tax regime anywhere in the G7. Does my hon. Friend agree that that encourages businesses to locate here and boosts our tax receipts?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The OECD has made it very clear that corporation tax increases are the most harmful tax increases for economic growth. By keeping business taxes down, in 2015-16 we saw a record number of inward investment projects creating more than 1,600 jobs per week.

Balancing the Public Finances

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing this debate. I just wish it was much longer, as do we all.

As my right hon. Friend knows, every morning we are admonished about having a desire to please, but it is a salutary warning. It is too easy to spend other people’s money, particularly when it is future generations’ money we are getting through. I have to take issue with the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). He referred to the financial crisis and the stewardship of the economy under Lord Darling. It was a privilege to serve in the Treasury in that period. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that no one was under any illusions that, no matter how tough the decisions to be made in 2008 and 2009, the real tough decisions and the real grinding work would happen in the 10 years that followed as we sorted out the fundamental problems left to us by the Labour Government.

A lot of good things have been said today, and I intend to speak briefly so that other good things can be said. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) referred to the level of debt interest payments and the cost of servicing that debt. We have done an extraordinary job as a Government of reducing the share of our deficit from 10% to 3% of GDP. That has still left us with a monumental debt pile, which we all recognise. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney referred to the cost of servicing that debt pile in terms of transport, but I think of it in terms of policing and schools—just to service that debt is equivalent to the amount of money we are spending on both.

We have to consider what would happen if in some ghastly, dreadful other world this country chose to elect a Government that had less of a reputation for fiscal competence and in international markets. Where would our blended interest rate go from then? If it was to the rates currently endured by Spain, Italy or Australia, we would be looking at an increase in our debt service level of 40%, 80% or 120%.

It does not end there. It does not end on the immediate fiscal impact, with the money having to be raised in tax or added to our debt pile. It would also come in the dynamic effects that would flow—it would come in lower levels of confidence and investment and fewer jobs, meaning lower tax receipts, more borrowing, higher inflation and lower confidence. The cycle goes on.

The Labour manifesto was stuffed full of examples of desiring to please, and the impact on our economy would have been disastrous. Every pound that we borrow now and every pound added to the debt pile is a pound for future generations to pay off with interest. Every pound added to our already high levels of national debt reduces our ability to take sensible measures and make sensible fiscal interventions when the next cyclical downturn happens, as assuredly one day it will. Were we to fail in our generation to rebalance our books, it is the next generation that we would be failing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I thank the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for bringing this debate to the House. It is an important debate to have. It highlights the fact that a huge number of Conservative Members live on a different planet from the rest of us. In particular, the speech of the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) did not seem to have any link with reality as I and my constituents know it.

Conservative Members are putting out economic soundbites that could easily have been lifted from the Conservative party’s manifesto, but that is not the lived experience of real people. That is not what is happening or what the just-about-managings are facing. They do not feel like their wages have gone up; they do not feel like the reduction in tax credits is at all helpful. I get that the personal allowance has been raised; that is brilliant and I am pleased that it has happened. I also get that the minimum wage has been raised, but it is not to a level that people can live on. That is the problem. It is still a minimum wage and it is not applicable to younger people in the job market. They may have families and housing costs—the same costs that those of us who are over 25 have—yet they are not worth the same wage as others. I am frustrated by the debate because I cannot believe that Members can spill this nonsense.

When the Chancellor gave the spring Budget statement, he reckoned that inflation would be 2.4% in 2017. Actually, in the 12 months to May, it was sitting at 2.9%. The forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility for earnings growth in 2017 was 2.6%. If inflation continues to grow at 2.9% and wages continue to grow at 2.6%, there will soon be a serious problem, particularly for households that are struggling with increasing levels of household debt. The Bank of England is concerned about the increase in household debt, which is at its highest since 2008. This is a real problem for families, especially when they will see their real wages eroded.

[Jeremy Quin]

Is the hon. Lady proposing higher Government spending, higher inflation and higher interest rates?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was literally about to come to that. There are three ways for the Government to increase spending on public services: higher taxes, higher borrowing or higher growth. Those are not my words but those of the Chancellor, yet whenever an Opposition hon. Member suggests increasing public spending or simply not reducing it, Conservative Members say, “Oh, you will have to put up taxes.” As the Chancellor said, there are three ways to increase public spending.

Some of the things that Conservative Members said are a concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that, according to the Resolution Foundation, 2011-21 will be the worst decade for pay growth for 210 years. That is quite some statistic.

It is interesting that the Government talk about how wonderfully they are doing for young people. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that those born in the 1980s have by their early 30s accumulated half as much wealth as those who were born in the 1970s. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned the IFS as a respected think-tank, and it won an award last night. If we are talking about mortgaging our future and concerns for the future, the lack of wealth accumulation compared with previous generations is a real problem, including for millennials. The way the Government are dealing with it is not working.

Economy and Jobs

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I have just explained to the House—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard—that it would not be legally possible for us to leave the EU and stay in the single market. It is simply not an option.

[Jeremy Quin]

rose—

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin).

[Jeremy Quin]

rose—

[Helen Goodman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am most grateful that the Chancellor is now taking my intervention. May I take him back to the discussion on amendment (l)? About six interventions ago, he was patiently explaining to the shadow Chancellor the risks to cashflows of nationalising all these wonderful businesses and the huge cost to the taxpayer that would result. I hope that the shadow Chancellor has been suitably educated. Will my right hon. Friend also educate the shadow Chancellor on the point that the total amount of our debt will have an impact on our borrowing costs? They are high enough already, but they could get a lot worse. The shadow Chancellor’s friends who run the Greek and Portuguese economies know about high borrowing costs.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The shadow Chancellor often talks about borrowing costs being low and about this being an ideal time to borrow more, but if he ever got his hands anywhere near the levers of power, with his programme of massively increased borrowing, we would soon see our debt interest costs soaring. That would mean yet more of our hard-earned taxpayers’ money being paid to the lenders.

Let me summarise where I have got to on Labour’s programme. The shadow Chancellor has a small problem with arithmetic. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found a £2.2 billion arithmetical error in his manifesto costings. We have identified a £90 billion black hole in Labour’s spending plans that would have to be funded by higher taxation on ordinary families, £250 billion of planned borrowing, and £120 billion—and some—for the nationalisation, which would all be added to our debt. So, just as our national debt is about to start falling as a share of GDP, the Labour party wants to add at least £370 billion to the pile.