Closure of Santander Banks

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley]

That is exactly why I have secured this debate. It is important that the Government provide answers on how they hold these businesses to account, especially big businesses like Santander.

I have continued to campaign actively on town centre decline and regeneration in areas such as Hamilton and Carluke. The consequences of further closures of banks and high street stores in the Clydesdale area cannot be overestimated. The wider impact they would have on Lanark are all too obvious and cannot go unrecognised.

Santander wrote at the end of last month to inform me of the decision to close its Lanark branch, with the rationale being that its internal review had found the branch to be no longer viable. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that it had already removed key services such as specialist mortgage advice and financial advice from many of its branches during the internal review.

According to the letter, 89% of customers using the branch are also using additional ways to complete their banking. That includes 26% using another Santander branch and 53% using online or mobile telephone banking. I fully accept that the changing nature of the digital economy and the increased use of online banking have changed how we use branches. However, Santander’s own figures suggest that it is content to let down the nearly three quarters of customers who are unable to travel to another bank and who rely on that service, and the nearly half of customers who do not or cannot access their bank online or through their phone.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

The Santander branch on Renfrew High Street is the sixth bank branch to close in the last three years across Renfrewshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is simply not good enough for banks to up sticks and leave without taking account of the digital and geographical constraints that are a reality for far too many of our constituents?

[Angela Crawley]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who drives home the point of this debate. In my constituency of Lanark, the rural issues go to the heart of why these closures are so impactful and, ultimately, why we are calling on the Government to do something about it.

This Government have stood on the back of the financial industry for years, yet they have done little to regulate it, to the point where banks are now closing right, left and centre and nothing is being done to improve local economies. None of the measures being taken has considered the impact on rural economies.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Mhairi Black Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to talk about a few issues, many of which have been brought up during the debate. The first is the subject of new clauses 1 and 5, both of which I support, and the way in which they have been written. I stress to the Government, and particularly to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the reason why the new clauses call for reviews is that we have no amendment of the law resolution, which means that we cannot put forward more robust amendments that ask the Government to do things. If we could have tabled more robust amendments, we would have done so, and I am sure that the Labour party would have done so as well. The Government have chosen to hamstring us and, as I have said before, when Conservative Members are sitting on the Opposition Benches, they will regret this behaviour. The fact that they chose not to move an amendment of the law motion makes it much more difficult for us to table any substantive amendments, but we are doing our best.

The things that we have managed to do during these Finance Bill debates are unparalleled in the Scottish National party’s history. We have managed to have two substantive amendments accepted to the Bill. I had two amendments accepted to the previous Finance Bill, but they were particularly minor. These ones are much more substantive and call for reviews. One of those amendments fits nicely in this section of our proceedings, as it relates to the public health effects of gambling. I am pleased that that amendment continues to be in the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister bringing forward that review in the next six months, as we have called for him to do.

There are various reasons why a Government can choose to change or introduce taxes. They can choose to have a tax to raise funds for the Government. They can choose to have a tax relief to encourage positive behaviour, or a tax to discourage negative behaviour. They can choose to have a tax to do one of the things that the Opposition and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have been keen to talk about. They can choose their priorities. They can choose to have a tax system that aims to reduce child poverty, reduce inequality and increase life expectancy, and we are asking for that to be the Government’s focus when they are setting taxes.

The Government should be looking at the life chances of the citizens who live on these islands and doing what they can to improve those life chances. That is the most important thing—it is why these reviews are being asked for. Whether or not the taxes that the Government have set are appropriate, we are asking for a change of focus and a change of priority, and I think the hon. Member for North Dorset was agreeing with that.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

Forgive me if I am stating the obvious, but do we not also need these reviews because we have Brexit coming up, and we have to be able to reflect on and evidence things?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is correct. One of the difficult things about looking at the potential outcomes of Brexit is that those stats do not exist. It is all well and good to talk about the fact that there are reviews sitting on shelves gathering dust, but we need stats. We need stats to be able to prove that Government policy does what it says on the tin.

The Minister can stand up and say, “This policy will raise £100 million for the Government,” but I would like to see not only the working beforehand, but the review afterwards that proves that the policy did what the Government intended it to do. I have been clear on a number of occasions that I do not think the Government do enough of that evidencing. The reviews being asked for would allow the Government to provide us with that evidence. Evidence written by the Government, rather than an independent individual, is still a legitimate thing that we can look at. The hon. Member for Torbay seemed to suggest that we would doubt information were it to come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—surely not! It would be good for him to provide that.

I want to talk about a few things that the SNP has been doing in Scotland and the changes we have chosen to make to not only our tax system, but other systems, and particularly those that affect the issues raised in new clauses 1 and 5. We have mitigated the bedroom tax, which has been a major factor in us having the lowest child poverty rate of any country in the UK. We have increased the number of people from disadvantaged areas who are going to university. We are making major changes to the care system for looked-after children. Those young people have had some of the poorest life chances in the past, and what the Scottish Government are doing on that is hugely important for ensuring that their life chances are improved.

We have increased the pregnancy and baby grant to £600. We are improving access to childcare, and we have the baby box scheme. We are the best country in the UK at paying the living wage—not the pretendy living wage, but the real living wage. People working in Scotland are more likely to be paid the living wage than those working in England. About half of taxpayers in England pay more than they would if they lived in Scotland, and that is the half of taxpayers who are earning the least. We think that that is a progressive measure that is assisting people to get out of poverty.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Third sitting)

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful for that intervention, which underlines the fact that in practice some of the calculations may be relatively complex. The response to the consultation sets out the Government’s view that in practical terms it should normally be possible for those involved to come up with the appropriate figure, but if not, an estimate would be acceptable.

While the hon. Gentleman was making his very relevant point, I was wondering whether there might be room for people to proffer a low estimate, which would obviously have a financial benefit, and then correct it later on. Will HMRC genuinely have the capacity to understand whether such an estimate was bona fide—as he says, evidence such as relevant bills may not have been fully available at the time—or whether it was intended to reduce liability? I agree that a specific reply from the Minister to that pertinent point would be helpful.

Clearly, in this case the length of time for any deferral of capital gains tax beyond the 30-day period, up to 22 months, would presumably need to be quite a bit shorter than the length of time we are talking about in relation to time-to-pay agreements. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that and whether his Department will be setting out criteria similar to those I have just mentioned for time-to-pay agreements to guide HMRC on this matter. Were these matters covered in the existing consultation that occurred with interested parties and just not reported in the Government’s response?

Amendment 32 would require a review of the effects on public finances if the provisions in this schedule were introduced from 6 April 2019. It would require the Secretary of State to

“lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act”.

We believe that the amendment is necessary—first, because from what I can see there are two effective start dates in the schedule and it is quite unclear why; and secondly, because we need to understand the anticipated impact of the measures to a greater degree than is surely possible with the information supplied to us.

We have already had a little discussion about the payment on account system. Arguably, it enables the smoothing of outgoings for individuals and individual businesses, and of revenue for HMRC, so to that extent it can help with financial planning. However, we are surely talking about quite a different process when it comes to the payment of capital gains tax. We are not talking about someone who is self-employed, who is very unlikely to have payment just in one big lump sum; it is likely to be in a number of different sums or continuous payments.

One could argue there is more of a rationale for payment on account in those regards than potentially here, aside from the fact that these measures will ensure more security of revenue for HMRC. Surely they could potentially have a revenue impact because, as the hon. Member for Poole mentioned before, without this 30-day limit individuals could be keeping that sum, effectively earning interest on it and paying it later.

I appreciate what was said about the interest rate being low now, but that will not always necessarily be the case. Surely it would be useful for us to have a review on the effects on public finances of these provisions, as requested in amendment 32. Amendment 33 from the Scottish National party pushes in the same direction, so we also support that.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East; we are also happy to support the Labour party’s very sensible amendments.

Our amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances and on reducing the tax gap of the changes made to capital gains tax in schedule 2. In 2016-17 the income tax, national insurance contributions and capital gains tax gap was 4.2%, or £13.5 billion—quite a significant amount of money for a Government to be short-changed on. It seems only sensible, then, that the Chancellor informs us of how he expects these changes to impact that tax gap. That would enable us to have a record of what the intentions are and what he expects to be the conclusion.

Only then can we coherently and clearly assess whether the measure is working or not. Especially given how unpredictable the current future is with Brexit and things, it surely only makes sense to put this stuff down in writing—“Here’s what we think is going to happen”—so that we can then assess it. Ultimately, it cannot hurt to be more transparent, so I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for their contributions; I will just pick up on the points that have been raised.

On the question of timing, both in terms of bringing the measure before the Committee and the fact that it is coming in in 2020, I should say that we clearly consulted very carefully. The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned consultation: we had an eight-week technical consultation, held between 11 April and 6 June 2018, and there were a number of responses to that.

On the issue of the date when the change will come in, it is important to mention that this is a significant change to the way the timing arrangements of this tax operate. The hon. Member for Oxford East drew on my observation that it is possible under the existing regime to have a 22-month delay between the sale of the asset concerned and payment of the tax. Of course, that is the maximum delay, which would occur in the event that the asset was disposed of at the very beginning of a tax year. In reality, the delay is likely to be shorter than that—as much as 12 months shorter if the asset is sold at the end of the tax year in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I do agree. Certainly judging by the conversations that I have had in a number of different parts of the country where the consolidation programme for HMRC is occurring, there is enormous concern, particularly about the expertise that is being lost by HMRC in some very important areas.

I would hazard the argument, relating this to the previous point, that when one is talking about, for example, tax officials having appropriate discretion to offer slightly different payment plans and so on to individuals, one needs to have experienced staff who can make those kinds of decisions, but we are seeing many such staff leaving. HMRC currently has the lowest morale, I think, among its staff of any Department. That reflects concern about the regionalisation programme, but also about other matters.

As I mentioned, it would help if we were provided with the set of criteria for deciding to apply a slightly different approach and allow latitude beyond the 30 days. It would also help if we were given, perhaps in written form, more information in order to reassure us that, because the window is still open for a balancing payment to be made later, the issue that we were talking about before does not arise.

Obviously, the vast majority of taxpayers will wish to make a truthful and accurate return, but if that process is manipulated, it could default in effect to what we have already, so it would be useful to hear about some of the anti-avoidance aspects of this measure. However, as I said, we are certainly willing to withdraw the Labour amendments.

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate everything that the Minister said. However, I think that our amendment is as sensible as it is transparent and therefore I still insist that it be part of the Bill.

[Mel Stride]

May I say to the hon. Member for Oxford East that I will, of course, be very happy to write to her on the criteria in relation to time-to-pay arrangements?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Returns for disposals of UK land etc

Amendment proposed: 33, in schedule 2, page 176, line 21, at end insert—

“Part 1A

Review of effects on public finances

17A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to capital gains tax returns and payments on account in this in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”—(Mhairi Black.)

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 2.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Mhairi Black Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Dromey]

It is a sensible move to give the FCA those extended powers. Therefore, we note the proposed amendments. Our colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, might wish to comment, but this seems to us a logical and sensible proposal.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I agree.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendments made: 21, in schedule 5, page 41, line 23, leave out from “a” to end of line 24 and insert “person falling within paragraph 1B.”

This amendment and amendment 22 would enable the FCA to obtain reports from claims management companies operating in Scotland if the FCA considers that it needs the report in preparation for its role as the regulator of claims management companies.

Amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 41, line 24, at end insert—

“1A A person falls within this paragraph if the person—

(a) is or at any time was authorised under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 (provision of regulated claims management services), or

(b) is, or at any time was, providing services in Scotland which the person would be, or would have been, prohibited from providing in England and Wales by section 4(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 unless authorised under section 5(1)(a) of that Act.

1B A person falls within this paragraph if the person—

(a) is authorised under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 (provision of regulated claims management services), or

(b) is providing services in Scotland which the person would be prohibited from providing in England and Wales by section 4(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 unless authorised under section 5(1)(a) of that Act.”—(John Glen.)

See the explanation for amendments 20 and 21.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25

Power of FCA to make rules restricting charges for claims management services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[John Glen]

Clause 25 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to give the FCA the power to cap the amount that firms can charge customers for the claims management services it regulates. The clause also places a duty on the FCA to make rules restricting charges for claims for financial services or products. The Government believe that placing a duty on the FCA to cap the amount that firms can charge consumers for services related to financial services claims is the only satisfactory way of ensuring that consumers receive good value for money. This is especially true given that consumers can, for example, take complaints about the mis-selling of payment protection insurance to the financial ombudsman for free. In addition, the general fee-capping power provided by the clause gives the FCA the necessary flexibility to respond to future changes in the claims management sector.