Financial Services Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks short, because I know it is late and we have a lot of work to do.

There are many amendments to welcome from the other House, particularly the regulation of “buy now, pay later” by the Financial Conduct Authority, where there is clear risk of consumer harm. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a remarkably ineffective piece of legislation but it is right that it is extended to e-money, as there is a clear loophole there. On cashback without purchase, there is no risk of consumer detriment there and we need to increase access to cash. It is right that it is brought outside the FCA’s remit.

On Lords amendment 1 and the duty of care, I spent five years of my life trying to get the banking industry to improve the care given to vulnerable customers, and clearly many consumer harms carry on. I launched schemes, actually in this House, for the banking industry to help customers with cancer and customers with Alzheimer’s. I am very attracted to the idea of some sort of blanket duty of care, but I do not support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that, as written, it is so wide-ranging that there would clearly be massive unintended consequences, which even vulnerable customers would live to regret. The second is that, as the Minister said, the FCA already has very wide-ranging powers, almost certainly enough to deal with all the consumer harms that need to be dealt with. I very much welcome the Government’s move, through their amendment, to push the FCA to look at how to reduce consumer harm and implement an effective duty of care.

On Lords amendment 8, mortgage prisoners absolutely need help. They have suffered massively, through no fault of their own, losing tens of thousands of pounds, if not more. We have rehearsed all the arguments tonight for and against this measure. We agree that we need to help these people, but the question is: how do we do that? The cap of interest rates is, as people say, a sticking plaster—even its supporters say that. I can see the appeal of it, but this sticking plaster comes at great cost: Parliament would be setting out interest rates in primary legislation. That could lead to huge unintended consequences in lots of ways—for example, through the impact on financial stability that we heard about earlier on some of the firms. It would also set an extraordinary precedent, with the Government doing price controls in that way. One does not have to be an historian of the 1970s to know of all the dangers of price controls.

It is also really not the solution we need. Where someone is trapped in a horrible prison with their guards abusing them and they are very uncomfortable, would they want that prison to be made more comfortable and the guards to behave themselves, as this cap in effect proposes, or would they want to get out of the prison? They would want to get out of the prison. We need to make sure that mortgage prisoners can move to other mortgage providers. That should apply to all people who are mortgage prisoners, including those who are in arrears, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) set out. This is very complicated stuff. There are lots of reasons why people cannot move, whether it is their loan-to-value ratio or their income stream, or because they are in arrears. It is absolutely right that they should be helped to go to regular mainstream mortgage lenders that are offering other suppliers, and I very much welcome the Government move to really push on that, working with the FCA. I take on trust their commitment to really push in that direction and get a solution to that for all the mortgage prisoners.

For those reasons, I am happy to vote against Lords amendment 8, so long as the Government do everything they can to help those prisoners.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I, too, will keep my remarks brief. In the debate tonight I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, will be opposing the Government’s motions to disagree with Lords amendments 1 and 8.

In particular, I would like to focus my comments on Lords amendment 8. This amendment would offer significant relief, I believe, to thousands of so-called mortgage prisoners caught in a vicious cycle of debt through no fault of their own. We have already heard the arguments rehearsed and some terrible stories of what they have been through. All that has been the result of the original decision, after the collapse of the mortgage providers, to sell off those mortgages to investment funds, and that has left as many as a quarter of a million homeowners trapped in spiralling mortgage costs for more than a decade now.

It is a situation that the Government have failed to address, even though there is clear evidence that it is jeopardising wellbeing. A recent study found that mortgage prisoners experienced higher rates of physical and mental health problems, and that they are up to 40% more likely to default as a result of coronavirus. The significance of this amendment is that it would finally unlock this trap and offer an escape from the nightmare of the past decade. Significantly, it would lower interest payments through a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners who are borrowing from a firm that no longer lends to new customers. The cap would be no higher than 2% above the Bank of England base rate, which is currently a mere 0.1%. It would also require lenders to offer mortgage prisoners new fixed interest rate deals in certain circumstances—for example, if they have kept up with payments in the past 12 months, if they have an outstanding loan amount of over £10,000, or if they have not received consent to let the property.

The misery caused to tens of thousands over the past decade and the continuing threat it poses demand that we act. We have heard tonight why. To me, it seems simple. It seems the correct thing to do, and therefore I strongly urge the House to reject the Government’s motion to disagree with this amendment—Lords amendment 8 —as well as with Lords amendment 1.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

There is a famous saying, is there not, that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but the problems born out of the banking crisis in 2008 still persist. Indeed, there are a quarter of a million households with mortgages affected by lenders who suffered at that time. They are with inactive lenders, and in simple terms their mortgages are stuck with non-lending asset management funds.

We know that the Government have looked at many of those borrowers to try to help them so that they can switch lenders. Many of them can—almost half of them—and they can benefit largely from doing so, but it is the remaining half that are our real problems, the so-called mortgage prisoners. Their rates, as they came off the original term deals, moved on to the standard variable rate we have heard about tonight, leaving them paying such disproportionately high repayments. Their lender’s debt was sold on, and as such they cannot remortgage or switch, leaving many families struggling immensely to manage each month. Lords amendment 8 would require the FCA to introduce a cap on those standard variable rates and ensure that mortgage prisoners can access new fixed interest rate deals.

I know there are huge amounts of work going on to try to help these people, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—I thank him for all the work he has done—but also by the Minister, who has been a tower of strength. He has been talking to me far too much about how we can help these people, and I thank him greatly for that. It is an absolute must that we do keep helping these people.

First, the 70,000 mortgage prisoners who are in arrears, would—for many reasons, unfortunately—potentially not be a better position if they were in the active market, as borrowers are unlikely to be able to switch within the market, given the very stringent risk criteria there are today. The Government are trying to support these householders with the initiatives we have heard about, such as the breathing space scheme.

It is the remaining 55,000 who have kept up their repayments that I particularly want to make sure the Treasury can really help and work on solutions for. I know there are again attempts to modify the affordability criteria assessment to try to move those people on to a new lender. Notwithstanding such efforts, those solutions are not the final answer. So what is the answer? Is it Lords amendment 8? Do we interfere with a market?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 2)
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely accept that our tax system is very complex, and I have proposed a number of measures on the Floor of this House to try to simplify it. For example, abolishing business rates and replacing them with an increase in VAT would simplify the tax system, instead of having an online sales tax. However, in terms of this debate I do not think it is the complexity of the issues that catches people out. We can see that 99% of tax avoidance schemes in the UK involve disguised remuneration—these are very contrived schemes. We should look at amendment 77 carefully. As to whether it is unfair on a person who is a promoter of what I would say is an extremely contrived tax avoidance measure, I am not totally sold that that should be a problem.

One of the biggest problems we have is faith in the system. This Government have done a huge amount to reduce the tax gap, which is at a record low of 4.7%, but if there is a £20 billion tax gap from fraud, the person in the street might reasonably say, “Why should I pay my tax?” This creates an incentive then for people to look at ways of avoiding tax. As to whether tax avoidance is fraud, the Government’s own call for evidence last month says clearly:

“The Government recognises that the design of arrangements that are sold as avoidance schemes may in fact enable fraud.”

So there is a good case for being able to take these further measures, as the Government are doing through stop notices, further civil penalties and stopping individuals hiding behind corporate structures.

The trouble is that, as we see in many areas, not least the banking sector, which I am pretty active in through my work in the all-party group on fair business banking, these kinds of organisations see a fine—a civil penalty—as a cost of doing business; the real deterrent for people is a criminal penalty. One of the best examples of this is to be found in a completely different sector, with the personal liability for a director in the construction industry. As soon as that personal liability came in and there was the potential for someone to go to jail if they did not make sure their sites were safe or they did not put measures in place, there was a huge decrease in the number of injuries and fatal incidents in the workplace in construction. That speaks to the point that if there are real criminal sanctions that we are willing to take forward and people think that that is going to happen, this promotion of avoidance schemes will start to drop significantly.

We probably have better resourced areas in terms of the prosecution of avoidance; I believe there are about three and a half times this number of people in the Department for Work and Pensions looking at benefit fraud, despite the fact that it is a much lower level of fraud—the level of benefit fraud is about 10% of that seen by HMRC. A beefing up of the resources in HMRC is therefore something we should consider. We have seen very famous schemes. I believe the Ingenious film scheme cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, but not a single promoter has been held to account for it. We need more resources, but we should also look at legislation. This country does not have a great record on prosecuting serious fraud. There are a number of examples where the Serious Fraud Office has failed to make charges stick—I think, for example, of cases involving Tesco and Barclays. That is why the SFO wants to bring in more legislation, which the Government have agreed to do, to create a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime. This would be a personal sanction on the directors of a corporation that failed to do that. Of course, in banking we now have the senior managers regime that the Financial Conduct Authority put in place following some of the scandals there, when nobody was held to account for the disgraceful abuse of both consumers and businesses through the past couple of decades in the sector. The excellent Minister might say that amendment 77 is not the right vehicle for this, but some beefing up of the legislation to make it easier to prosecute fraud—criminal activity—is something that we should seriously consider.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).

I welcome the action that the Government are finally taking against the promoters of tax-avoidance schemes. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be supporting new clause 29, which would require the Government to review the impact of provisions relating to tax avoidance and publish regular reports that set out the findings. We will also support amendment 77, which would cause the promoters of abusive tax-avoidance schemes to be treated as acting dishonestly for the purposes of criminal prosecution for tax offences, without dishonesty having to be proved separately by the prosecution. We believe that the measures we are considering are what the Government should have been doing earlier. The promoters of abusive tax-avoidance schemes have deprived the public purse of millions of pounds and defrauded countless people who thought that their services and the advice offered were legitimate.

The action being taken now comes too late for so many victims of these schemes who had no intention to do anything unlawful or to evade taxes and have already been unfairly penalised. Liberal Democrats are committed to clamping down on tax avoidance, but the retrospective nature of the loan charge is causing uncertainty and financial hardship to ordinary working families, most of whom acted in good faith. Thousands of IT support professionals, social workers, teachers, cleaners and nurses—all of whom acted in good faith, based on professional financial advice that what they were doing was legal—now face immense pressure, which is impacting on their mental health and causing serious financial hardship, which will only be magnified by the economic consequences of covid-19.

Meanwhile, online tech giants and international corporations have been avoiding tax for years but have not been clamped down on in the same way, even internationally. With the load charge, the Government are going after nurses and teachers. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members in this place, I have a number of constituents who find themselves in exactly the position that I have described, facing retrospective taxation since HMRC changed its rules in 2017. One constituent whom I have been representing has attempted to correspond with HMRC on anomalies in the settlement agreement policies, but to no avail. Although he is categorised as fully compliant and not liable for the loan charge and pre-2010 loans, he is not being refunded any settlements that include pre-2010 amounts. The fully compliant are not benefiting from the pre-2010 amendments, while other categories are.

As I have said, we undoubtedly need to clamp down on tax avoidance—the deliberate evasion of taxes—but we should be clamping down on those who promoted it, not on those who took advice believing that it was lawful. The Chancellor must also go further than his recent decision merely to limit, in the Budget, the retrospective element of the charge to 2010; he must end the retrospective application of the rules altogether so that nobody who fell victim to such schemes before 2017 should be unfairly penalised. The Government must also further re-examine IR35.

I shall end my speech there, but it is important that we recognise that the steps that we must back today should have come before us much earlier.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), but I must pick up on one of her points. She indicated that the Government had done nothing to crack down on online companies, but the evidence shows that the Government took action to ensure that if we buy something from an online marketplace such as eBay, Wish or Alibaba, the seller charges VAT. That was a significant source of lost income for the Exchequer.

It is right for Opposition Members to raise the Panama papers, because they highlighted to the general public—to residents up and down the country—the actions of a small number of tax-avoidance advisers and very wealthy individuals who did not want to pay their fair share. I think it is right that we should look at that in the context of the action that the Government have taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Charles Walker)]

We now go to Christine Jardine, who is joining us virtually.

[Christine Jardine [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[The Temporary Chair]

We will move on to Felicity Buchan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (The Temporary Chair)]

Christine Jardine, welcome back.

[Christine Jardine]

Thank you, Chair. Apologies, I do not know what happened just then, but it is now a pleasure to take part in this debate.

I will be supporting amendment 81, as will the Liberal Democrats, which would ensure that the stamp duty land tax holiday no longer applies to the purchase of second homes. I will keep my remarks short, in the light of the earlier mishap. Suffice it to say that we believe that the SDLT holiday is not effective in helping first-time buyers on to the housing market. Giving a tax break to people who have already saved money for their property and can already afford a mortgage does not entirely solve the problem. Extending the SDLT holiday would serve only to avoid a cliff edge, depriving the Treasury of much-needed funds at a time when there are many extremely pressing calls on our public finances. Combined with the new lower deposit mortgage scheme launched in the Budget, its only effect is to increase demand for housing without increasing the supply of homes. For me, and for the Liberal Democrats, that is crucial. Members can see where I am going with this: we need to increase the supply of homes.

The Government need to take steps to increase the number of homes being built. They first must make and then keep to their targets, support local authorities that want to build new homes and enforce affordable homes targets. That must include building 100,000 new social homes a year. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a new rent to buy scheme, where people can build up shares in housing association homes through their rent. I ask the Government to examine the merits of that proposal. These steps would be more effective in getting people on to the housing ladder. Therefore, I ask that the amendment be supported and I ask the Government to consider the rent to buy scheme as a way of realistically helping people on to the housing ladder without increasing demand for housing that is not there.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome many of the measures in the Finance Bill, particularly the measures on stamp duty. Like many people who called for a stamp duty holiday, I welcomed it when the Government announced it and I am glad to see that it has been one of the most successful stimuli to economic activity that the country has seen. The moribund market is now racing ahead, albeit possibly slightly too fast. I recognise that homeowners need certainty—many of them are in the middle of transactions —so this is good. We are not out of the pandemic yet, so I welcome the Government’s move to extend the stamp duty holiday to the end of June. I also welcome the fact that they are removing the steep cliff edge and replacing it with a smaller cliff edge by tapering it out and extending it at a lower rate until the end of October. Those are both good measures that will keep the housing market going and give certainty to homeowners.

I do not support amendment 81, which proposes that these measures should not apply to second homes, although I understand the social justice argument behind it. The purpose of the stamp duty holiday is to stimulate economic activity, and whether a home is being bought to live in or as an investment property, that still involves economic activity in the housing market. Our focus here is on stimulating the market, and both those activities have equal effect.

Back in 2012, I co-founded an organisation called the HomeOwners Alliance, Britain’s first and only consumer group for homeowners. Our aim was to champion homeowners and aspiring homeowners and to help people to get into the housing market, recognising that home ownership is a valid aspiration for all young people, and indeed older people, and that the primary role of homes is to be lived in. They are not investments or casinos; they are to be lived in, and that should be the role of Government policy.

I wrote various papers on the reform of stamp duty. I will not go on about the details, but there were two particular reforms that I called for. One was an increase in the stamp duty on second homes, investment properties and buy-to-lets. The other was an increase in the stamp duty for non-residential buyers. The Government have already introduced the first of those, and I think they have raised almost as much money from that as they do from residential stamp duty. Now, in this Bill, they are introducing the stamp duty surcharge for non-residential buyers—the people who want to buy homes in this country but who have no intention of living in them. As a country, we have been very generous to such people—far more generous than most other countries—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said, this has a real cost in terms of preventing other people from buying a home that they actually want to live in.

It is very welcome that the Government are introducing the 2% surcharge for non-residential buyers who do not want to live in the UK. It is right that it should start low—2% is quite low; that is often the fee that we pay to the estate agent—but the Government should monitor it. There will be an opportunity to increase that rate, while ensuring that doing so does not have really bad effects on the market but that it does have an effect on demand and helps to free up properties for people who want to buy a home to live in. The money from these measures is being used to house rough sleepers, which is very welcome, but in the longer term as we raise the rate and more money is brought in, I would use that revenue to reduce the burden of stamp duty for those buying homes that they want to live in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington so eloquently said, stamp duty is a big burden for homeowners. Following those thoughts for the future, I will be fully supporting the Government’s policies.

Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I find myself in a curious position in this debate in that while I agree with SNP Members that the EU deal is disastrous for this country, I am dismayed by their motive. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about the negative impacts of Brexit: a 40% decrease in UK goods exported to the EU; the UK economy shrinking by almost 3% in a single month; and trade groups telling us about fundamental problems with new trade barriers. The Scotland Food & Drink trade association tells us that the seafood industry has suffered an 83% fall in sales to Europe—an 83% fall. The impact is clear for us all to see but, unlike the hon. Lady, I want to fix it, not to double down and make things worse.

I appeal to SNP Members to listen to their own argument and to assess the logic of the motion they have put before us today. They must acknowledge the damage, which they highlight, that is being done to our economy by leaving a strong, successful economic union. If they listen to their own argument, they will stop their incessant and baseless claims that independence is the answer to every problem from economic decline to bad weather.

If ever the people of Scotland wanted an example or blueprint of what separatism and leaving the United Kingdom might mean for their jobs, livelihoods and wellbeing, they have it. Look at the damage done to our small businesses, our exports and our fishing and farming industries and at the economic dislocation that is being brought about by Brexit. That is what this country is going through. Rather than work together to combat it and to use the benefits of being part of the world’s oldest and strongest economic union, the SNP would, as I say, have us double down and make things worse—separate Scotland from its biggest market, put up a border, cut us off. Yes, I have heard the claims about an independent Scotland rejoining the EU, and it will come as no surprise to anyone in this place that I wish all the UK could at some point rejoin the EU, but the reality is that that is simply not on the table.

Countries that apply to join the EU have to meet criteria. Scotland does not meet the criteria at the moment, and it would be further from attaining that if it were not part of the United Kingdom. Please, let us address the problems we have, rather than create more. Let us make a joint effort to fix the situation that this Government have created with this disastrous Brexit deal. We must not forget that that was a kind of nationalism, too. That deal, together with the pandemic, has left us in a perilous condition. That is what worries my constituents in Edinburgh West this week. People are worried about the recovery. They want their politicians, at all levels, to focus on recovery, and that is what we should do.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). However, I am profoundly disappointed that we have to discuss this amendment to the language in the Bill today against a background of an increasingly bitter and divisive debate about LGBT and transgender rights. I thank the Minister for her reassurance at the beginning of the debate that there is no undermining of LGBT rights and that these issues will be addressed in the future.

I am sure that I am not alone when I say that it is the proudest boast of my life that I am a mother. I am completely committed to the rights laid down in this Bill. When it was first debated, I was concerned, as were many others, that it had taken too long to bring the legislation before us, and that it did not go far enough in recognising all forms of parenting and the need for wider parental leave. Today, I am more concerned that this important piece of legislation is potentially being, or could be, sidetracked. Regardless of my frustration about the background to the debate, I would not want that delay to happen. I know that there are those in this place who believe that there is an important political point about the language, but I do not believe that it is as important as the necessity for this Bill.

As a liberal—in this context, I believe that there are many liberals with a small “l” in this place on both sides of the House—I am firmly of the view that language that excludes or remove the rights of any group in favour of another is unacceptable. That is precisely why, for me, gender-neutral language is preferable and why it is used. It does not erase anyone. I certainly do not feel in any way compromised as a woman by its use, or that my rights are in any way undermined. For me, it also reflects more accurately the reality of modern life.

The Bill relates to benefits accruing to those who give birth, extending them to Government Ministers and some Opposition spokespeople who currently do not have those benefits. It does not deal with the registration of births; it is not proposed that that process be changed. Neither does the scope extend to legal gender recognition or restrictions. In that context, I would have no objection whatever to the gender-neutral language if it were used, and I have no intention of objecting to the change. However, I cannot see why Parliament would not persist with gender-neutral language in the future. As the Minister made it clear that there will be further legislation, that this legislation does not affect LGBT rights, and that, if the occasion arises, a trans male Minister would not be disadvantaged, I feel that the importance of this legislation —and of having it enacted as quickly as possible—means that we should not delay over perfectly legal language.

Government's Management of the Economy

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to speak today and to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). When I look around me, I see that the Government’s handling of the pandemic has left us with the worst economic recession of the G7 and that their botched trade deal with the EU has caused unnecessary avoidable damage.

I am slightly disappointed with this debate. At a time when this country faces an enormous challenge to its future, when my constituents are crying out for an economic plan that will save their jobs or allow the company that they have invested years and their family’s future in to survive, and when taxi drivers, hairdressers and florists who have not been able to earn for most of the past year are desperate for some hope that the Government will help them, I am disappointed that the Labour party wants to talk about the past. It is a past that we cannot change. Surely Labour Members must appreciate that when they look back to the times when their own economic policies were less than universally successful. So please let us park the political tribalism and avoid point scoring. Let us look at where the country is and what it needs.

The economy has shrunk 10% in the past year. Unemployment this morning is at 5.1%, and half of those who have joined that massive figure from paid employment are less than 25 years old. Our young people do not know if the future they have worked and planned for is now going to be possible. The future is uncertain for so many. Of course we should learn from what has gone before, but we should be talking about and planning for what is ahead of us, because this is about recovery. Our experiences may differ, but surely we have all felt the pain of the past year and more, through the people we serve. Many have felt it more acutely than others, and that is the point. We have to keep people in work and businesses afloat, so that they are as strong as they can be as we slowly come through to the other side of this. Some will have to rebuild, and it is our responsibility to give them the tools to be able to do that. That is why the country is holding its breath, hoping to hear some hope from the Chancellor next week.

We need to innovate our way out of this crisis and to put the environment back at the heart of the UK’s agenda. We need to tackle mass unemployment and establish ourselves as the country of the green industrial revolution. We need to bring under Government support the countless self-employed people who have been excluded from all help, and we need a long-term extension to the furlough. We need a bold green recovery plan, an increased carers allowance, access to free school meals and better mental health services, and maybe the time has come to recognise that universal credit has gone wrong. We need to investigate a universal basic income, and listen to the voices from our cross-party parliamentary groups, the devolved Administrations, the Mayors and the public bodies up and down the country—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Time’s up.

Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

First of all, I add my congratulations to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), and the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).

As so many other right hon. and hon. Members have said in this debate, I find myself both supporting and welcoming this Bill, and at the same time being astonished at its shortcomings. Before being elected, it would never have occurred to me that representatives in this place did not have the basic provisions for parental leave that I had taken for granted during my career. Indeed, my daughter is now 24, and I was taken aback in 2017-18 when one of the first changes we discussed in the House after my election was about proxy voting for Members who were pregnant, and about maternity and paternity leave. I discovered that parents in the House did not enjoy the same rights that I had had more than two decades before, so while I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support this Bill, we are disappointed yet again that it lacks provisions for paternity leave and other parental rights. It does not, for example, address rights for adoptive parents, and how someone becomes a parent should not determine what leave they are entitled to.

This was, as I say, a missed opportunity: an opportunity for the Government to bring parental rights up to date, and to introduce not just measures for Ministers, but measures that apply to all MPs. This place should not just pass legislation, but set a tone for so much in our society. Gender equality is something on which we should be taking a lead, not running to catch up, as we seem to be. Work practices such as shared parental leave are vital to creating new cultural norms and achieving that gender equality, but how can we expect that to happen if we do not, as I say, set the standard ourselves? As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, if we get it wrong here, that will be reflected across the country. That is why I have signed, and support, the hon. Member’s amendment requiring the Government to produce an equalities impact assessment of these proposals. As has been mentioned, even well-intentioned legislation can, if it is rushed through, fail to recognise pitfalls. So please, let us not fall into one or fail on that account.

It is vital that the Government recognise that the Bill cannot be seen in a vacuum. It is certainly an important measure, but we must also send a message across the country and ensure that it is the correct message. It must send out a national call to action to protect the rights of all parents in all workplaces during these most difficult and challenging times.

There is still much more we need to do for parents. We need to increase statutory paternity leave, ensure that parental leave is a day one right and address the continuing inequalities that same-sex couples face. Organisations and employers must be required to publish parental leave and pay policies.

Like so many—indeed, all, I believe—of the speakers we have heard so far, I welcome the Bill. It has simply been too long delayed and does not go far enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid that we need to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople after the next speaker.

Exiting the European Union (Excise)

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). My desire to speak in this debate was driven not only by my serious concerns about the immediate impact of the measures on our airports, our retail sector and our tourist industry, but by my concern about the potential for manipulation into yet another grievance strategy by the Scottish National party and all separatists, as part of their continual campaign to undermine the United Kingdom—something that we have, sadly, seen amply demonstrated in the debate.

I ask the Government to think again, revisit this decision and re-examine the detrimental impact that it could have on our economy. Tourism and the individuals it brings here are a major contributor to the economy of the UK and each of its constituent parts, collectively and individually. Visitors who take advantage contribute around £6 billion a year to our national coffers, which are being dipped into heavily at the moment. More than that, it protects thousands of jobs in our tourist centres and elsewhere.

Attracting high-spending overseas tourists is an economic strategy that is internationally recognised and has worked for us. It has kept our cities on an equal footing with international competitors such as Paris, Milan and Madrid. By removing this incentive, we would be boosting them, to the detriment of our own cities, and detracting from the UK’s international appeal. We would also be adding yet another blow to our hard-hit retail sector at a time when it is already reeling. Experts have warned that this measure would cost my city of Edinburgh an annual loss of £92 million. Those are the figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which also estimates that it would cost Manchester £60 million, Liverpool £32 million and Leeds £18 million, at a time when all our cities can least afford it.

The impact will be felt initially by tourism, retail and airports, but experts have warned that it will gradually spill out and affect other sectors. Hospitality, which is already hard hit, will suffer as tourists choose other countries and other cities in which to spend their money in restaurants, cafés and bars. Manufacturing, too, will feel the pinch. Tourism industry bodies have warned that as many as 70,000 jobs are in immediate jeopardy throughout the United Kingdom, while it has been estimated that the broader damage could affect as many as 138,000 jobs, at a time when unemployment in this country is already rising at an unexpectedly rapid rate.

Our country’s retail, hospitality, events and entertainment sectors, and just about every sector imaginable, are struggling to cope with the impact of a crisis that was beyond our control. The pandemic was visited on us; it was not due to any choice we made. This change would be self-inflicted damage. It would undermine vital industries and cost jobs. I appeal to the Government to think again about the danger inherent in this statutory instrument, the benefits to the country that would be lost and the damage it could do to our future.

Equitable Life

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is a privilege, but not a pleasure, to take part in this debate, it being 20 years on from the moment when more than 1 million policyholders lost part of their pension savings. They are still waiting for full transparency about what happened and justice regarding the retirement they planned and thought they were saving for. They are victims of maladministration.

We have already heard how Equitable Life policyholders who did not have with-profits annuities have received compensation worth only about 22% of the loss they faced, how in 2008 the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have had, and how the coalition Government promised to do so. Numbers and statistics are an easy way for us to hide what that all really means. Hard-working people who have done nothing other than seek to provide for themselves and their families after years of work have had their lives turned upside down. Nurses, teachers and war veterans have all been left behind—and now, more than ever, we have seen exactly what being left behind can mean. Yesterday, in his inauguration speech, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, asked Americans to walk in each other’s shoes. That is advice that we would do well to listen to in this place. We should put ourselves for a moment in the shoes of those whose lives are behind the statistics—pensioners whose lives have been affected.

I have personal experience of knowing how important retirement pots can be at any age. At the age of 45, my mother was suddenly alone with three daughters. She worked miracles for us, none of which would have been possible without my father’s pension pot. He was only 44, so it was not huge, but if it had been depleted by maladministration in the way that these pots have been, our lives would have been very different. Let us not forget that Equitable Life pensioners are not the only pensioners in this country who have been let down by successive Governments. I am sure that women who are approaching 70 and have had their state pensionable age changed feel a great deal of sympathy for the Equitable Life pensioners. There are so many in a generation who have been let down in their later years.

We must not now use covid or Brexit to shield us from the problems that still exist. They have not gone away, and, if anything, those involved will now feel further away from the Government than ever before. A constituent who wrote to me was one of the many people across the country who did not receive the full redress—in fact, less than a quarter of it. As grateful as they were, this is still a drastic depletion of their retirement funds. That is acknowledged by the Treasury but blamed on the state of the public purse—a bit much when we consider some of the spending decisions that have been made since.

Perhaps the worst thing in all these years, which have seen protests, lives lived and lives lost, is that this could have been avoided. No one should be penalised, particularly in their later years, for having done the right thing. The Treasury has not been transparent enough about how these payments came to be. It has not given this due diligence. Over 1 million people deserve better. Many people have had any semblance of financial stability whipped out from underneath them in what was and is one of our worst financial scandals. They deserve better. They deserve more than just another inquiry.

The coalition Government decided that people should be compensated. We must fulfil that now; it is our job in this place not to hinder it. We are duty-bound, morally bound, to help to fix this.

Small Business Support: Covid-19

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is unfortunate that I have to raise, and not for the first time with this Government, an issue that faces so many of our businesses, particularly small enterprises. There can surely be nobody in the House—or, indeed, the country—who is unaware of the impact of the pandemic on them, on their businesses, their employees and their families. Every business in every sector in this country is actually a group of people or often only an individual. My concern for their future is matched only by my admiration for how so many of them, working and using their ingenuity to stay within the rules and restrictions on covid-19, are staying afloat, too often without any support at all.

As with practically everything else in the past year, circumstances have dictated a different approach for us all, from how we go about our daily lives to how we shop to how we do business. We have watched as companies have skilfully adapted to ever-changing circumstances, but we have also seen the cost to our arts and entertainment sector, our hospitality sector and quite starkly to our retail sector, where even big names have been vulnerable. To be fair, the Arcadia Group was perhaps already vulnerable before covid-19, and likewise Debenhams, but that is no consolation to the thousands of people who spend their time worrying about whether their jobs can be saved from the rubble of what were once some of the proudest names on our high streets, or whether they might be next.

In the run-up to Christmas, small businesses had to face the reality that the usual festive volume of trade, which they need to enjoy a profitable or often even a survivable year, was gone. The two most recent former Conservative Prime Ministers made no secret of the fact that they believed that small business was the backbone of the British economy. Promises were made. I ask this Government to consider whether they have been fulfilled or whether, as I believe, more needs to be done. Yes, there are packages of support, loans and furlough, but they are all short term. They are patches—knee-jerk, bit-by-bit responses to a long-term problem with unprecedented implications. Surely it is long past time to bring those patches together and create a long-term strategy to support that backbone of the economy.

As a politician, one of the things I believe we should try to do is to get to the heart of what people actually need and find practical, workable solutions that can make a difference to people’s lives. In the past year, that has been a challenge. For example, the most recent forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that the economy will have shrunk by a frightening 11.3%. At the end of September, GDP was already down 9.7%. We should remember exactly what it is we are talking about. Behind all the numbers and equations are people who feel the ramifications of the sums that we do.

Before Christmas, I wrote to the Chancellor urging him to support an idea that I believe would still have value in supporting small businesses, particularly those in retail: covering their postage fees, to help level the playing field with online giants. Freeing small shops of delivery costs for online purchases would go some way to help combat the decreased footfall over months of lockdown. As restrictions are tightened and our worlds become even smaller, the impact of such a move cannot be underestimated. Together with the suspension of business rates, it could support small businesses in much the same way as the Eat Out to Help Out scheme rightly pumped £800 million of Exchequer cash into hospitality. It would also give them something with which to fight back against the online giants, who have soaked up so much custom as we all seek ways of shopping during enforced home time. The Federation of Small Businesses welcomed the idea as providing its members with the boost they need to help level the playing field.

Too many people have been completely left out of support. We need to innovate our way out of this crisis, so where is the help for the self-employed and the entrepreneurs whose ingenuity and inventiveness we will rely on as we look for growth? We need them to survive along with those small businesses, until they are all able to thrive once again. In arts and entertainment, an industry in which there are so many small companies and self-employed people, there is a huge hole that we need to fill—a gap in the safety net that this Government promised when they said they would do whatever it took to get us through this.

I am a great believer in putting yourself in someone else’s shoes to look at an issue—the constituent with a problem, the business facing bankruptcy because it is following rules or the make-up artist, musician or freelance journalist who cannot work and whose pleas for support have fallen on deaf ears for 10 months. Perhaps it is easier for me to appreciate that last category. In a previous career, I was a freelance broadcaster for some years. I can see only too clearly what my life might have been in this time. I see it reflected in their campaign and in their hardship. I saw it every day in my constituency when I was still able to shop, socially distanced and wearing a face mask, in the many and varied independent outlets that are the lifeblood of my community.

A high street is not just a thoroughfare. It is where people come together and support their communities, whether or not they are making a conscious decision to do so. We might not have thought about it before as we nipped between the newsagent and the bakers. We would notice it now, however, if they were no longer there to nip to. We often speak about businesses as if they are just there to fill the coffers and there are no humans behind them at all. Behind every idea and every counter is someone with a family and a mortgage who has been brave enough to try. They need us to take on covid for them, because that is what they deserve. Just as they have adapted to serve our needs and bring us hope and joy, we have to adapt. We have to extend furlough, suspend business rates and admit that schemes in place for last summer will no longer be enough come the spring.

We need communication across all four nations, and we need every Government in this United Kingdom to put politics aside and do what is best and what is right for those who need it most. To that end, I ask the Government to put pressure on the Scottish National party at Holyrood to expedite the many applications from people who are still waiting for support, even though the money is there. Tonight I spoke to a constituent in precisely that position. As an MP, the health of my communities is always at the forefront of my mind, even in good times. I hope and ask that our small businesses are at the forefront of the Government’s.

Financial Services Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill and to focus my brief remarks on the wholesale market, rather than the retail market, which most Members have addressed so far. In particular, Government amendments 22 and 23, which the Minister mentioned in his opening speech, clarify beyond any doubt that non-UK firms—all firms that do not have the UK as their principal place of business—are not within the scope of the rules on the parent undertaking. That is particularly relevant to me. I brought the subject up in my Second Reading speech and it is something on which I have corresponded with the Minister and his team. I am very glad that he and the Treasury have engaged on the Bill in this way. It is a telling example of how good Ministers behave, and the Minister has been exemplary in taking on board comments on the Bill from a range of Members. I commend him for that.

I have a couple of short comments on what others have said. On new clause 16, tabled by the SNP, in my speech on Second Reading I gave my view that there is a need for increased scrutiny by this House of the regulators, but the Minister is right to say that we need to consider that in its entirety in the consultation on the future of the regulatory framework. That is the right way to do it. It is very important to get it right, and I look forward to sending in my remarks if I have not already, and seeing the Government’s response to those points.

I shall finish by addressing certain amendments that were introduced in Committee or that have been mentioned today, on the European Union—new clause 12, new clause 20 and many others—whereby, effectively, Opposition Members have tried to impose requirements on the FCA or the PRA to assess the impact of the differences between the EU and UK regulatory frameworks. The conceptual problem with that is—as I think that all hon. Members, and indeed the Government, need to see—that over the next five to 10 years we are going to be in a very different regulatory world. We need to think of attracting companies and investment on a global basis, not with a purely European focus as was the case in the past.

The Minister has already mentioned our success in relation to FinTech. The Chancellor has mentioned his focus on making sure that the London stock exchange is more attractive and effective for others coming from abroad. The European Union’s drivers and incentives are not the same as ours in this country, so it would be wrong for us to necessarily seek to follow the rules blindly. It is not a race to the bottom; it is a race for us in this country to win the global competition for safe, beneficial, productive capital and business. That is what the Bill helps set us up for.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) in this Report stage debate and to speak on a Bill that is of so much importance at this juncture for our economy and the circumstances that we face. The sector that it deals with is so important, and it cannot be overstated. The financial services sector is vital to our recovery, not just because of the jobs it provides and the tax that it contributes to the Exchequer, but because of the number of people, families and communities in this country whose future wellbeing depends on a well-regulated and successful financial services sector.

The Liberal Democrats, my own party, have tabled two amendments—new clauses 22 and 23, both of which address the issue of debt repayment and recovery, but at this stage we shall not be pressing them to a Division, so I prefer not to discuss them. Instead I shall discuss the amendments that we will be supporting, specifically new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), of which I am one of the signatories. As I alluded to, our support is recognition of the need to act now to create an environment that enables our economy and the people at the heart of it to recover as quickly and as financially painlessly as possible. The scale of the potential problem that awaits us as we emerge from the current crisis is frightening for businesses and for households. The most recent research from StepChange estimates that more than 3 million people are in arrears and priority debts, and potentially 6 million people—more than the population of Scotland—are behind on household bills. For those people, that creates stress, financial hardship and sleepless nights worrying about how to feed their children.

We should have no truck with any company or organisation that in any way exploits the difficulties that covid has created. That is why I put my name forward as a co-sponsor of new clause 7, which would bring the non-interest-bearing elements of buy now, pay later lending and similar services under the regulatory ambit of the FCA. We need to act now, before we have another scandal. Such companies facilitate overspending online and costs appear lower than they actually are. One in four shoppers used such companies in the run-up to Christmas. More people are being furloughed and made redundant, so even if something seems affordable now, it might not be in future, either for the country or for individuals.

In the past year, we have heard much about the crossroads at which our economy, and indeed the country, stands. Our financial services sector was worth £132 billion to the UK economy in 2018 and had more than 1 million jobs. It has suffered. It is worth 7% of our economy. In my city of Edinburgh, we have the second-largest financial services sector in the UK and the global financial centres index ranks it as 13th in the world. The scale of what we are facing cannot be underestimated, which is why the Bill should be amended as I suggest.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I very much appreciate the efforts that the Minister is making to try to tighten up in many areas. We are on the same page about many different aspects of the measures that we are talking about. Looking at the Bill from afar and taking a helicopter view, for decades, we have been willing to preside over a system that I would describe as financial feudalism. Some people live by a completely different set of rules and are not held to account properly by the rules that are in place. Unless we start to put measures in place that hold individuals to account for some of that egregious behaviour, we will not stamp it out.

That behaviour undermines the faith in the very system that we believe in—the free market system. We cannot simply hold our hands up and say, “It’s the bankers again,” or, “It’s the money launderers again.” We have to tackle those issues and put measures in place to do that. We did with the Bribery Act 2010, which was effective in giving individuals a corporate responsibility to stamp out bribery. Again, the Government acted on tax evasion in 2017.

There are still other areas, however, where we allow people to steal, defraud, launder and lie. That is not to say that there are not some good people in our financial institutions, and there are some very good bankers, but we need to hold individuals to account for things such as LIBOR, foreign exchange rigging, and the disgraceful scandal at HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland, where only one individual has been held to account with a directorial ban. As I have said before, over a similar period of time, between 2008 and 2018, there were £9 billion of criminal and corporate fines in the US, but £260 million in the UK.

I am glad that the Government support the principles behind new clause 4 and will bring their own measures forward. It is absolutely vital that that is not just kicking things into the long grass and that those measures are brought forward quickly so that we can hold individuals to account for failing to prevent corporate fraud and money laundering.

The key thing that I will talk about in my last 54 seconds is mortgage prisoners. Again, the fact that we let people’s mortgages be sold to vulture funds in the first place is because we do not have proper regulatory oversight and we do not lean on them as the FCA can on regulated firms. The promises that were made to Lord McFall and others were simply not carried through.

New clause 25 in particular is a nuclear option. I am not a person who would like to cap anything—the market should deliver those solutions—but we do not have a proper solution for the many people who are trapped on very expensive rates. The evidence that we have says that it would not affect the marketplace of residential mortgage-backed securities, about which the Minister is concerned; that it would be highly effective; that we could define it for a certain cohort; and that it would relieve hundreds of thousands of people from dire financial straits overnight. I ask him to look at that again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine [V]]

Like other Members, I would like to reiterate my and my party’s support for the financial services sector and its importance to our economy, making up about 7% of GDP. There has been a lot of cross-party agreement on this in Parliament. I hope the Government recognise that it is incumbent on them to take on board the comments from the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party and the Scottish National party. There is a great deal of work still to be done to protect consumers from unscrupulous operators, and this will be vital to not only our economic recovery but the future shape of the United Kingdom’s economy once we recover from covid-19.