Future Government Spending

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Cathy Jamieson

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

How dare Opposition Members indulge in the sort of scaremongering that we have heard this afternoon! I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) would like to celebrate the fact that youth unemployment in her constituency has gone down by 43% since 2010 and that overall, unemployment has gone down by 31% over the same period.

[Cathy Jamieson]

rose—

[Andrea Leadsom]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady as she did not give way to my hon. Friends.

Furthermore, does the hon. Lady agree that Labour’s motion today is false? She said that the cuts we have made take us back to the 1930s. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that

“by 2019-20, day-to-day spending on public services would be at its lowest level since 2002-03 in real terms.”

And that was when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was in the Government. Does she want to celebrate any of those points with me?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the Minister for eventually giving way. Although I celebrate young people and the long-term unemployed finding work in my constituency, I hope that she will recognise that for many of them, it is zero-hours contracts, low-paid work, and jobs that are not in their chosen careers. They want more from a future Labour Government and they will get it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am sure that there is no need for me to give way to the hon. Lady again so that she can congratulate us on the fact that, on average, 75% of those new jobs are full-time employment. There are some other facts that Opposition Members might like to celebrate. I am talking about the fact that the UK was the fastest growing major economy in 2014; that more than 760,000 private sector businesses have been created over the past four years; and that employment is up by 1.85 million since the last general election—that is 1.85 million more people with the security of bringing home a regular pay packet. She might like to celebrate the fact that wages are rising significantly faster than inflation, and that total pay was up 2.1% in the three months to 2014.

The hon. Lady might like to hear the views of international commentators. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, said:

“The sweet spot you want is low, stable predictable inflation. You’re going to get that”—

in 2015. Is the hon. Lady interested in the view of President Obama? He said:

“I would note that Great Britain and the United States are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems. So we must be doing something right.”

Perhaps she would like to hear the views of Christine Lagarde who runs the IMF. She says:

“A few countries, only a few, are driving growth.”

The hon. Lady needs to listen to this. Christine Lagarde is talking about America and the UK. She goes on to say:

“And the UK, where clearly growth is improving, the deficit has been reduced, and where the unemployment is going down…Certainly from a global perspective this is exactly the sort of result that we would like to see.”

There is a word of warning from the OECD. It says:

“Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”

That is vital and it is what we intend to do.

Let me turn now to some of the very interesting comments made by colleagues across the House. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) gave an excellent talk about the reality of our determination to sort out Labour’s mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) told us why the Government have been so good for his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) spoke about the importance of competition for economic growth. It is absolutely vital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) contrasted Labour now with Labour in 1997, when the party at least had a vision. He also talked about Labour’s spiteful prejudice against success, and that is right, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) pointed out the vital need to invest in infrastructure in his constituency and his fears that Labour would prioritise Scottish over English interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) pointed out the nonsense of Labour’s motion and the need to ensure that we in this generation do not leave our debts to our children and our grandchildren.

Let me point out to Opposition Members what the IFS recently said about Labour: higher Government borrowing acts to support household incomes in the short run, but the resulting higher levels of Government debt mean that a greater proportion of public spending must be allocated to financing debt interest payments in the long run and potentially leave the UK more vulnerable to large negative shocks in future. Simply borrowing more is just not an option.

The hon. Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Preston (Mark Hendrick) both accused this Government of having done nothing for the NHS, but perhaps they would like to celebrate with me the fact that the health budget has increased in real terms every year during this Parliament, that total health spending has increased by £12.7 billion during this Parliament and that on top of that in the autumn statement the Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion for front-line NHS services in England in 2015-16. The vital point about the NHS is that we cannot have a strong NHS without a strong economy.

Since today we have had a very interesting living standards report from the IFS, I want to give hon. Members some other things to celebrate. The IFS has assessed that average household incomes are now restored to around pre-crisis levels. That is something to celebrate. Wages are up 4.1% in real terms for those in continuous employment. That is fantastic. Inflation is at 0.3%, helping family budgets to stretch further. Let us look at inequality, which is lower than when this Government came to power with, as the IFS has said, pensioner poverty at near record low levels. That is vital in our economy. This Government support fairness and have also ensured, as the IFS has today confirmed, that the richest households have paid the most, with

“larger proportional falls in income for higher-income households.”

That is absolutely vital. Inequality has fallen and the biggest burden has been borne by those with the broadest shoulders.

It is vital that members of the public who have to choose very soon who they want to run the Government for the next five years know that they have the choice between a Government who have been determined to ensure fairness and an Opposition who are completely incoherent and whose lack of facts and plans lead them simply to resort to scaremongering in the hope they can persuade people to accept a non-coherent plan from their Front-Benchers. This Government believe in a fairer society and a fairer society is created by helping the weak get stronger, not by making the strong weaker. We can only have a fair society on the back of a healthy, well-functioning economy and we can only have a healthy, well-functioning economy on the back of sustainable public finances.

The Government’s long-term economic plan is making public finances sustainable for the first time in a great many years. It is delivering economic growth and as the IFS confirmed today it is raising the standards of living across the country. That is vital. We are finally on the right track and now would be the worst time to change direction. Let us keep going, let us finish the job and let us give the people of this country the fair, strong, healthy and vibrant economy that they deserve.

Question put.

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Cathy Jamieson

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

I have to say that I am extremely disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson). I find it absolutely astonishing that Labour Members have the courage to raise the issue of bankers’ bonuses. Perhaps they have forgotten that it was under their light-touch regulatory regime that the worst excesses of the banking sector were allowed to flourish. I wonder whether she regrets the fact that the shadow Chancellor is not in the House today. Does she suspect that he regrets saying, as City Minister in June 2006, that

“nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime”?

Does she think that he regrets presiding over a system under which £66 billion was paid out in bonuses on his watch?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I wonder whether the Minister heard what I said when I was challenged about whether the shadow Chancellor ought to be in the Chamber. I noted that the Chancellor is not present, and I raised the question of what Conservative Members had done on light-touch regulation. Were they not arguing for it? Can she give me an example from that time when her party proposed something different?

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is just another typical Opposition ploy. At that point, the Conservative party was in opposition and the Labour party was in government. It is absolutely unconscionable for the Labour party to suggest that the Opposition of the day should have saved the Labour Government from their own excesses.

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Cathy Jamieson

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

Part 1 sets out some definitions for the Bill and is purely technical but, with your indulgence, Mr Chope, may I say again that this is a non-controversial Law Commission Bill, on which we had a constructive debate last week in the Second Reading Committee, and which has been scrutinised by a special Public Bill Committee in the other House? I hope that we can agree that clause 1 should stand part and move on to discuss the substantive clauses, taking each part in turn.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister has outlined, this is a non-controversial Bill overall, and we did indeed debate and discuss it last week. I have no issue with clause 1 and think that it is important to get on to the other areas of the Bill on which the Minister might wish to answer some questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Application and interpretation

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 3 deals with insurance warranties and similar terms. An insurance warranty is typically a promise by the policyholder to do something that mitigates the risk. Under the current law, any breach of warranty completely discharges the insurer from liability from the point of breach. That is so even if the breach is remedied before any loss is suffered and if the breached term had nothing to do with the loss. The insurer’s remedy therefore often seems unsuitable and too punitive. The Bill provides that an insurer will be liable for insured losses arising after a breach of warranty has been remedied. It also prevents an insurer from refusing payment on the basis of a breached term that could have had no bearing on the risk of the loss that actually occurred, such as where a warranty concerning a fire alarm is breached and the insured then suffers a flood in the insured property. The Bill also abolishes “basis of the contract” clauses. These clauses convert every statement made by a policyholder on a proposal form into a warranty.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, it has been helpful to hear the Minister’s comments. We have no difficulty with these clauses.

On clause 9, under the current law, an insurer may add a declaration to a non- consumer insurance proposal form or policy, stating that the insured warrants the accuracy of all the answers given or that such answers form the “basis of the contract”. That has the legal effect of converting representations into warranties. The insurer is discharged from liability for claims if the insured made any misrepresentation, even if it was immaterial and did not induce the insurer to enter into the contract. The Law Commission gave the example of a claim for flooding being refused, as the Minister suggested, because the insured had failed to install the right model of burglar alarm. The clause seeks to put an end to this practice by abolishing “basis of the contract” clauses in non-consumer insurance. Clause 10 replaces the existing remedy for breach of a warranty in an insurance contract.

Clause 11 was initially not included in the Bill. That gave rise to the introduction in the other place of a new clause that replicated a similar clause originally included by the Law Commission pertaining to situations in which an insured had breached a term of contract but could show that

“its breach of the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.”

In the Lords Committee, some expressed the view that this omission was an error. The Minister, Lord Newby, explained that the clause as originally drafted was

“too controversial to go through the special procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills.”

He did, however, admit that it was

“difficult to argue against the policy and to say that insurers should be entitled to refuse liability for a loss that is of a completely different nature from that contemplated by the breached term.”

At the Government’s prompting, the Law Commission submitted a new draft, which became the current clause 11 and which was

“intended to minimise the uncertainty inherent in the first formulation”.

The clause acts to rectify the situation prior to the Bill when the actual nature of a breach of term was irrelevant. This has been a helpful process to ensure that that piece of tidying up was done. On that basis, we have no problem with these clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Remedies for fraudulent claims

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Fraud is a serious and expensive problem for insurers and innocent policyholders alike. According to industry statistics, policyholders currently pay an additional £50 on every insurance policy because of the cost of fraud to insurers. The Bill therefore strengthens and clarifies the civil law aspect of the Government’s drive to combat fraudulent claims by policyholders. The Bill sets out clear statutory remedies for the insurer where the policyholder has made a fraudulent claim. It affirms the common law position that the policyholder forfeits the fraudulent claim. The insurer has no liability to pay any element of it and can reclaim anything it paid before it knew about the fraud.

The Bill also clarifies an area of uncertainty, in that the insurer may choose to refuse any claim arising after the fraudulent act. However, previous valid claims should be paid in full. Finally, the Bill gives the insurer the equivalent remedies against a fraudulent member of a group insurance policy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister has again clearly outlined what the clauses do. As she said, clause 12 sets out the insurer’s remedies where the insured makes a fraudulent claim. It puts the common law rule of forfeiture on a statutory footing. Where the insured commits a fraud against the insurer, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance claim to which the fraud relates. Where the insurer has already paid out insurance moneys on the claim and later discovers the fraud, the insurer may recover those moneys from the insured. As we have heard, that provides the insurer with a further remedy giving it an option to treat the contract as if it had been terminated at the time of the “fraudulent act”. That does not apply where a third party commits a fraud against the insurer or the insured, such as where a fraudulent claim is made against an insured party who seeks recovery from its insurer under a liability policy.

Clause 13 gives the insurer the remedies where there is fraud by one member of a group scheme. Again, we have no difficulty with these clauses standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Good Faith

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will convenient to discuss clauses 15 to 18 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 5 deals with two separate matters: the principle of good faith and the ability of parties to contract out of the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 14 retains the statutory and common law principle that a contract of insurance is one predicated on good faith. However, the clause abolishes avoidance of the contract as the remedy for breach, recognising that avoidance is capable of operating very harshly against policyholders.

The provisions are a default regime for business insurance contracts. They are expected to be appropriate for the majority of insurance contracts, but there may be circumstances when parties prefer to set out their own bespoke arrangements. However, if an insurer wishes to rely on a term that will operate more harshly against the policyholder than the Bill otherwise provides, clauses 16 and 17 require it to act transparently when the contract is made, by ensuring that the meaning of the alternative provision is clear, and by drawing the attention of the policyholder to it. In so far as the Bill applies to consumers rather than businesses, it is a mandatory regime. Insurers are not entitled to contract out of its provisions to the detriment of consumers.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, insurance contracts are ones of “utmost good faith”. Clause 14 removes avoidance of the contract as a remedy for breach of that duty of good faith, both from the 1906 Act and at common law. The intention of clause 14 is that good faith will remain an interpretative principle, with section 17 of the 1906 Act and the common law continuing to provide that insurance contracts are contracts of good faith.

Clauses 15 and 16 prohibit insurers from inserting in an insurance contract terms that would leave the insured—be they a consumer or a non-consumer—in a worse position than that required by the Bill.

Clause 16 defines transparency in respect of what an insurer must do to draw the insured’s attention to the disadvantageous terms of the contract. Clause 17 sets out the transparency requirements. For example, the insurer should take sufficient steps to draw disadvantageous terms to the insured’s attention within a reasonable time frame prior to their entering into the contract, but when an insured has knowledge of the term, they may not claim that the insurer has not brought it to their attention. Clause 18 deals with the insurer’s remedies where a member of a group insurance contract makes a fraudulent claim. Again, we do not think that these clauses are controversial and we are content for them to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Power to change meaning of “relevant person” for purposes of 2010 Act

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

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 20 and schedule 2 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 6 covers a topic that is distinct from insurance contract law. It amends the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 and will assist injured parties who have claims against parties that are now defunct where insurance was in place to cover such claims. As I said in the Second Reading Committee, part 6 will make it easier for mesothelioma sufferers to obtain compensation due from insolvent employers.

The Bill allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove circumstances in which a person will fall within the provisions of the 2010 Act. The intention in the first instance is to use this power to add insolvency and other similar events to the 2010 Act. Draft regulations are being prepared by the Ministry of Justice. Once the first set of regulations are made, the 2010 Act can be commenced. The Government are committed to bringing the 2010 Act into force as soon as practicable.

[Cathy Jamieson]

In the Second Reading Committee, I welcomed the fact that part 6 gives mesothelioma sufferers the opportunity to be dealt with in a timely fashion and to receive the justice they deserve. It is a terrible condition that many people have suffered as a work-related illness. We should do everything possible to support them.

Clause 19 inserts a new section into the 2010 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations adding or removing circumstances in which a person is a “relevant person” for the purposes of the Act, provided that the Secretary of State considers that the proposed circumstances involve dissolution, insolvency or financial difficulty, or are similar to those for the time being prescribed in sections 4 to 7 of the 2010 Act. That seems sensible and we have no problem with the clauses or the schedule standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 7 deals with technical matters such as commencement, territorial extent and consequential amendments to existing legislation. The Bill repeals or amends various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, which are superseded by provisions in parts 2 and 3. Clause 23 provides that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the provisions on insurance contract law will come into force 18 months after Royal Assent.

From a practical perspective, the new provisions will not apply to existing insurance contracts, but rather to new contracts and variations agreed after the Bill comes into effect. The regulation-making power on the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the Minister has said, clause 21 makes provisions consequential on part 2 and amends or repeals various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, as well as the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. She has also confirmed that clause 22 ensures that those provisions relating to fair presentation and good faith apply only to insurance contracts entered into after the end of the period of 18 months from the Bill’s entry into force. Clause 23 ensures that the Bill extends to the whole of the UK, apart from consequential provisions in clause 21 relating to Northern Ireland. Again, we are happy for these clauses to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Fuel Duty

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Cathy Jamieson

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can give that commitment.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that it was her Government who put in place the fuel duty escalator, which is the whole problem facing British motorists today? Does she accept that?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Lady must also recognise that it was in her Government’s Budget. What we are asking the Chancellor to do is listen. We have heard a great deal about how he is in listening mode, but I do not know how long he must listen before making the decision. According to the House of Commons Library, the cost of delaying the fuel duty rise again until April 2013 would be around £350 million, and we think that could be paid for through a clampdown on tax avoidance. I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) wishes to intervene.

Banking Competition

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Cathy Jamieson

Thursday 12th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am not aware of the specific amendment that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. However, I certainly think that the Government will be wanting to promote diversity, and I am very much aware that they want to promote the diversity of financial service providers. I can tell him that, at a recent hearing with the Treasury Committee, the Governor of the Bank of England assured us that he, too, was very interested in promoting more competition and greater diversity. We unanimously agree on that point.

The best way to shake the banks out of their complacency is to allow new entrants into the market, bringing with them the high standards of service—including IT that works—that customers believe they should be able to take for granted. One significant step in that direction would be to break up and sell off the state-owned banks. That would create overnight potential new challenger banks in Britain, and I urge the Government to look at it again. The market concentration of the big five is appalling. Lloyds, the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Santander and Barclays have an estimated market share of 85% of the personal current account market and 67% of the mortgage market. That is a classic oligopoly, and they do behave like one. We can see all over the place barriers to entry, not least of which is the fact that those banks own, among them, the Payments Council and VocaLink—two crucial entities that enable the financial services markets to operate.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

In an earlier Westminster Hall debate this week on the Royal Bank of Scotland, I heard from one of the hon. Lady’s colleagues what was essentially a call to mutualise RBS. Does she agree that that would be one option? Is she proposing that?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening. Not specifically, no. My point is more that we need the market to decide on diversity. I do not think that the Government, in any area of our economic life, should be the ones who pick who should be doing what. What Government need to be doing is facilitating greater competition and greater diversity so I would not be prescriptive in that way.

The key point that I want to focus on is that a real game changer for competition would be for the Government to introduce full bank account portability. We take that for granted with our mobile phones. Why should our bank accounts be any different? I have been pressing for it, along with various colleagues, since becoming an MP. If people were able to switch instantly between banks without having to change their bank account number, bank cards, standing orders, direct debits and all their online shopping, that would remove a massive barrier to entry that is currently constraining new, innovative banks.

Bank account portability has five basic benefits. The first, obviously, is that it creates greater bank competition. That is because a new bank can say to its customers, “Come and give us a try. If you don’t like us, you can move back to your old bank tomorrow.” The enormous inertia on the part of customers, who do not want to move bank because of the hassle and aggravation for them personally, would be removed instantly. They could switch between banks every day of the week if they chose to do so.

Secondly, personal and business customers would be able to force banks to compete for their business. New banks would therefore be putting forward innovative ideas—perhaps paying customers to move to them at one end and giving particular services to business account customers at the other end. That would completely change the choice available to consumers, and the consumer choice argument is a very strong one. At the moment, with the big banks, most people feel that there is no choice.

The third benefit is better regulation. The regulator would be able to shut down a failing bank while avoiding the risk of a run on the banks. With account portability, all personal and business accounts could be switched immediately to a survivor bank.

Fourthly, there would be a reduction in fraud. The highly overestimated costs of account portability need to be set against the significant reduction in bank fraud. I was talking to Intellect, the IT trade body, which reckons that bank fraud could be reduced by up to 40% if we had full account portability, because one of the major reasons for fraud is the poor legacy systems in some of the big banks.

The fifth benefit would be support for SMEs. It is crucial that we have that in our economy; we have to get businesses going again. Funnily enough, if banks had a single system, they would also have a single customer view, so they would be able to evaluate, calculate and assess their small business customers far more accurately, enabling them to meet the needs of small businesses far better.

Making it easier for people to switch bank account provider is not a new concept. Don Cruickshank, who led a review of the banking sector and whose report was published in 2000, has long been committed to the idea. In 2000, Halifax launched the stand-alone telenet bank Intelligent Finance, with the express aim of making it easier for consumers to switch bank accounts. In March 2001, the Competition Commission identified reluctance on the part of small and medium-sized businesses to switch banks as a major problem. Later that year, the Bank of Scotland announced its intention to capture business from what was at the time the big four with a new “Easy to Join” service, which would assign a staff member to oversee the account switching process and to deal with direct debits, standing orders, international transfers and the like.

In June 2002, James Crosby, then chief executive of HBOS, said that he was concerned by delays to greater account portability and that the move was vital for competition. More recently, the Independent Commission on Banking, led by Sir John Vickers, called for a system that would make account switching easier. However, the ICB’s proposals stopped short of full account portability.

This year, Virgin Money has added its support for full bank account portability. It has said that it is happy to support the ICB proposal that a current account redirection service should be established by September 2013, but that it is

“not sure that it will be sufficient to overcome consumers’ inertia, and their concerns that switching may be difficult.”

In its submission to the ICB, it expressed a preference for full account number portability.

The ICB published its final report in September 2011, following an interim report that April. The Treasury Committee took evidence in relation to both reports, and several bankers said that account switching was important. Mr Horta-Osorio, chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, told the Committee:

“There has been progress made in terms of customers being able to switch effectively and without risk, but more progress can be made. We are proposing a seven-day automated redirection of direct debits whereby customers in seven days can be sure that their account and their direct debits are automatically redirected to the new account without any risk. All banks have now endorsed that solution and the Payments Council as well.”

At the weekend, Jayne-Anne Gadhia, Virgin Money’s chief executive, said that

“banking doesn’t have to be remote, distant and just transactional. There can be a new and different future where customers are at the centre of the banking experience…For too long, banking has been more head than heart. We want to put more heart into it.”

The ICB reported that there was a switching rate of just 3.8% for personal current accounts in 2010, that three quarters of consumers had never considered switching their current account, that 51% of SMEs had never switched their main banking relationship and that 85% of businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses had not switched their main banking provider in three years. Which?, the consumer focus group, estimates that people are more likely to get divorced than change their bank account. Those switching rates compare very unfavourably with those in other industries. In 2010, 15% of consumers changed their gas supplier, 17% switched electricity supplier, 26% switched telephone provider and 22% changed insurance provider.

Jayne-Anne Gadhia of Virgin Money says that

“retail banking has been underinvested in. When retail banking becomes the focus of senior banking executives again, which the splitting of retail and investment banking would bring about, bank customers will get a better service. If that happens, then I would be delighted.”

I agree with her. Making it easier for consumers to switch provider would be a boost to new entrants in the market and therefore to competition, because consumers would know that if they did not like the bank they had moved to, they could always move again.

Pensioners and Winter Fuel Payments

Debate between Andrea Leadsom and Cathy Jamieson

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his colleagues for bringing this important matter before the House today. The debate is extremely timely, as we are at that point in the year when pensioners are already worrying about what the coming winter weather has in store for them. In my constituency—and in the right hon. Gentleman’s too, no doubt, since he is just across the water from me—we are already experiencing rather colder weather than we have here in London.

All of us on the Opposition Benches know, and many on the Government Benches also know, although they may not openly admit it, that people are feeling the squeeze of rising prices. They are increasingly worried about the basic costs of living, particularly food and fuel prices. With unemployment at its highest level for 17 years, and more women out of work than at any time since 1988, more and more people are struggling to make ends meet.

The real problem is that this out-of-touch Government seem to have no idea what it is like for ordinary people who are trying desperately to keep their heads above water. It is time that out-of-touch Ministers realised how tough things are for pensioners right now and how their policies are making things even harder. This year, pensioners are facing not just a double whammy, which was referred to earlier, but a triple whammy of higher VAT, soaring energy prices and what is effectively a cut to the amount of money that they receive in their pockets to assist with winter fuel payments.

I do not think that the Government understand why people are so outraged that the energy companies can increase their profit margins eight times over at the same time as every household in the country is seeing their bills go sky high. The “Plug the Debt” campaign launched by Consumer Focus and Citizens Advice has highlighted:

“The average energy bill has risen by over 21% since autumn 2010 from £1,069 per year to £1,273.”

I have heard the Minister say that that is only a pound a week, or a small amount, and £200 a year might not mean much to the well-off or the millionaire, but believe me it is a huge amount for a pensioner household with a fixed income, where every penny is a prisoner.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Is it the Opposition’s policy to reverse the decrease from £250 to £200 a year that they proposed and increase it back to £250?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will spend some time dealing with that point during the course of the debate, but I want to say at the outset that it is time this Government took responsibility for their actions, rather than constantly blaming someone else for unpopular decisions.