Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for bringing this debate before us today. I want to make a few comments.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) that access to banking services is a major issue in rural constituencies, but it can also be an issue in urban constituencies. In parts of my constituency, which is wholly urban, some communities have been left without banks. Owing to the way public transport works and its unaffordability in some places, accessing banks can still be hard, even if people live in a community that is part of a city, so we need to make sure that we are looking at this issue as a whole in all the communities affected. Public transport can be a significant issue.

Where capitalism fails, we need market intervention—that is what should happen. We need more market intervention to ensure that there is at least a minimum, if not a universal, banking service. A number of the banks that have closed in my constituency have said, “It’s okay, because people will be able to go to the post office.” However, the post office in Seaton has closed, and we have been fighting for years to get a new post office in the community, but nobody is willing to take it up. That community is left without either of those services, and people have to travel. In common with the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), a significant proportion of my constituents—at least a third—do not have access to a car, and getting around the city and to the bank can be pretty difficult for them.

We have universal service obligations when it comes to broadband and to Royal Mail delivery, but we do not have them when it comes to post office services and banking services, yet cash is incredibly important. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) mentioned access to cash, but that is not the only reason we need banking services. There are some things that can only be done in a bank—whether that is businesses depositing the cash that they have taken, people taking cash out of a cash machine, or individuals signing forms to approve a loan or a mortgage. Some of those things can only be done physically in the bank, including things that people need to do only once a year. Someone living in Banff, Aberdeenshire, will have to spend an hour and a half to two hours on public transport to get into the city—a significant length of time. As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said earlier, we are charging people for that privilege. Even though it might be free to withdraw cash, the public transport that they need to take in order to get to a bank is not free.

I urge the Government to look at the minimum services that people need in order to access cash and banking services that are close to them, and that they can access by whatever method of transport they happen to have. Could the Government please take action on this?

Winter Fuel Payment

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

For over five years, I have been raising the issue of impact assessments and the fact that they do not make sense. I see the Opposition Front Benchers nodding along, because they know that I have been raising that issue.

Impact assessments are done on a stupid basis that does not make any sense, and certainly not in today’s world. If the Opposition Front Benchers had only changed it when they had the opportunity, we would not be in this situation today. But the Labour party has the opportunity to change the way we do impact assessments so that they actually make sense. They should be about not just whether businesses will be impacted to the tune of £5 million, but what matters to people and whether their lives will be impacted by a change in policy. That is the point at which impact assessments should be done.

We do not have an impact assessment for this policy. Do the Labour party and the UK Government know that single women are three times more likely to be missing out on pension credit than single men? Does the Labour party know that pensioners who are black or from Asian ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be in poverty than white pensioners? Does it therefore know that this decision has a differential impact on minority communities? Is that why it has refused to share the impact assessments with us? How will this policy grow the economy? How will ensuring that pensioners, who we know spend in their local communities, have less money to spend in those local shops grow the economy?

The issue with all of this is not whether we have a Tory or a Labour Government. It is that Westminster consistently fails to work for the people of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As the hon. Member rightly points out, the Government are providing £500 million to extend the household support fund in England for another six months, and that will include Barnett consequentials. That is an important measure to help people in the months ahead, but the crucial way to increase people’s living standards and tackle the cost of living crisis in the longer term is to get the economy growing. We have spoken at length about the measures that we have already taken as a new Government—from planning reform and the national wealth fund to Great British Energy. All that is about getting the economy growing, because that is the sustainable way to make people better off and to invest in our public services.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Means-testing the winter fuel payment increases the burden on many vulnerable people and reduces their living standards. Unlike the Scottish Government, who have many statutory constraints on their budgets, the Chancellor’s fiscal rules are entirely self-imposed. Does the Minister think that sticking to the Chancellor’s fiscal rules is more important than the health and wellbeing of pensioners?

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today, particularly the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who gave an excellent speech. As with many of the maiden speeches, now I really want to visit his constituency. It just sounds like an absolutely amazing place. I particularly congratulate all the new Members who have come from a council background. Being a local councillor sets them up fantastically for coming here. It means they are under no illusions about the hard work that is required to be put in for their constituents and the people who live in their area. Congratulations to all of them.

I also congratulate the Chancellor on being the first female Chancellor. As the first woman in this place ever to lead on the economy, although I have been followed by a number since, I am incredibly glad to see one on the Government Benches. I hope that, as she said, her tenure lasts significantly longer than those of some of the Chancellors we have seen in recent times.

Today’s debate is taglined “Economy, welfare and public services”. Apart from the maiden speeches, speeches focusing on anything other than economic growth have been fairly few and far between. I will not for one second deny that economic growth is important, but the whole point of it is what we then do with it. It is about what we do with the extra tax take generated from the growth we have created. There is no point in having growth for growth’s sake. There is no point in having economic growth, and no point in the Conservatives saying how fast the UK is growing compared with other countries in the G7, if the same handful of people are getting richer and richer and the vast majority of our constituents are struggling harder than they ever have before.

We need to ensure that the economic growth and the increase in the tax take that the Labour party is hoping to deliver involves a benefit for all those who live in these islands and in our constituencies. It is massively disappointing to hear that the five pledges and priorities for the Labour party in government do not have eradicating child poverty at the heart of them. I am really glad the Government are bringing together a discussion taskforce to reduce child poverty, but today they could bring 300,000 children out of poverty and move 700,000 children into less deep poverty simply by scrapping the two-child cap.

One of my previous colleagues in this place, Alison Thewliss, campaigned incredibly hard on the rape clause—everybody will know of the work she did on that. There are 3,000 women across these islands who are eligible for an exemption from the cap because they have applied under the rape clause. They have had to tell the Government they were raped in order to get an uplift in their benefits. That is horrific, and even if the Government are unwilling to move on the two-child cap they should be doing something about the rape clause and what people are having to prove in order to get the exemption.

It would be very easy to increase growth, again overnight, by increasing migration. Migration to these islands increases the amount of growth. The economy would immediately have grown if the Prime Minister had gone to the summit with the EU leaders this week and said “Yes, free movement benefits us: it benefits our economy, benefits our society, benefits our young people, benefits our musicians, and benefits so many different groups and individuals. It benefits our culture; it makes this place a better place to live. Therefore we are signing up again to free movement.”

We need only look at some of the past Budgets, such as a Budget George Osborne gave from the Dispatch Box, when it has said in the Red Book that increasing migration will increase the tax take because of the economic growth it will bring. My constituents and people across Scotland recognise that, and we will always argue for a better migration policy—and if the Government are not willing to do it for all of these islands, we will argue for one tailored specifically to Scotland so that we can make our own decisions that suit the needs of our communities and encourage that economic growth.