Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. The reversal of the planned increase in national insurance will help businesses, individuals and the institutions to which he refers.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Can the Chancellor state how much the investment zones are worth and how they will be funded?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There will be more detail about investment zones. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be updating the House on the specifics of the zones.

The Growth Plan

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend has made an excellent point about renewables. It is always salutary for the House to be reminded that we have 11 GW—in fact, nearly 12 GW—of installed capacity of offshore wind, which makes us second only to China in terms of the offshore wind roll-out. There is no reason why we cannot continue to lead the world in offshore wind, solar, and other forms of renewable power.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Does the Chancellor agree with the former Bank of England rate-setter Martin Weale, who has said that the Government’s approach could “end in tears” with a run on the pound?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What will end in tears are high taxes, high spend and very low growth, and that is exactly the iron circle that we are trying to break.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

Not surprisingly, the hon. Lady has put her finger on one of the most fundamental elements of the debate that we need to have on the Bill, which is the accountability of regulators, as expressed through the House and, if I may say so, through the Government. I can assure the hon. Lady that that will be a fundamental part of our debate throughout the Bill’s progress, and, indeed, I will say more about it later in my speech.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way? This is further to that point.

[Richard Fuller]

If it is further to that point, of course I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I think that one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) was not just about regulation post-Brexit, but about the power grab in the Treasury. Clause 3 deals with the Treasury’s powers during the transition, and it states that the primary legislation in schedule 1 will be bypassed, with powers given directly to the Treasury because of the need to move EU regulations speedily into domestic law. That, I think, is where one of the problems lies. It is a question of how much power is going directly to the Treasury and bypassing Parliament entirely.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady has made a useful point. She has identified the fact that there is an extensive amount of change in this Bill. As we repeal EU legislation, there will clearly be some measures on which there is a common view that they can easily be repealed and are unnecessary. It is right that the Treasury, and the Government, should be able to take those actions directly. Equally, there will be measures that will require full consultation by the House through secondary legislation, and I can give a commitment that that will be done apace, but with the ability for parliamentary colleagues to debate those measures fully. It is important that we achieve the primary objective of the Bill, which is to make the United Kingdom a solid global financial service centre.

In fact, the Bill has five objectives. They are to implement the outcomes of the future regulatory framework review, which involves reshaping our regulatory and legislative regime as an independent state outside the EU; to bolster the competitiveness of UK markets and promote the effective use of capital; to promote the UK’s leadership in the trading of global financial services; to harness the opportunities of innovative technologies in financial services; and to promote financial inclusion and consumer protection. I will take each of those in turn.

Let me deal first with the implementation of the outcomes of the FRF review. Clause 1 and schedule 1 repeal retained EU law for financial services so that it can be replaced with a coherent, agile and internationally respected approach to regulation that has been designed specifically for the UK. This will build on the existing model established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which empowers our independent regulators to set the detailed rules that apply to firms. They do this while operating within the framework and guard rails set by the Government and by Parliament.

Schedule 1 contains more than 200 instruments that will be repealed directly by the Bill. While in some cases these rules can simply be deleted, in many areas it is necessary to replace them with the appropriate rules for the UK, in our own domestic regulation. These instruments will therefore cease to have effect when the necessary secondary legislation and regulator rules to replace them have been put in place.

As we have already heard from Members today, giving these measures effect will require a significant programme of secondary legislation to modify and restate retained EU law. I can confirm that in most cases, this will be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

When I say “access to cash” I mean access to cash. My hon. Friend raises the question of whether that access should be free; that is a matter to which we will return in Committee, but I cannot give him that assurance at this stage.

As the country faces cost of living pressures, we must ensure that the door to affordable credit is open to all. The credit union sector plays a crucial role in this respect by delivering for its members and providing an alternative to high-cost credit. Clause 63 allows credit unions in Great Britain to offer a wider range of products and services to their members. To improve consumer protection, the Bill will strengthen the rules around financial promotions. Clause 62 enables the Payment Systems Regulator to mandate the reimbursement of victims of authorised push payment scams by payment providers, for all PSR-regulated payment systems, and places an additional duty on the regulator to mandate reimbursement in relation to the faster payments service specifically.

Clause 48 and schedule 9 give the Bank of England new powers to oversee wholesale cash infrastructure, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness, resilience and sustainability. Clause 47 and schedule 8, on cash access, will ensure that the FCA has regard to local access issues and a Government policy statement on access more generally. The Treasury will designate banks, building societies and cash co-ordination arrangements to be subject to FCA oversight on this matter.

[Emma Hardy]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

I am afraid I am going to conclude.

This is a significant Bill and I look forward to the House considering each measure in detail as it makes its passage through Parliament. The Bill has a single vision: to tailor financial services regulation to the UK’s needs, to promote global competitiveness and innovation, and to contribute growth in our economy. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I want to start with a general point about the Bill, which puts an awful lot of faith in our regulators to be able to carry out the functions written in it. I have been approached by members of staff working for the FCA—in fact, staff representatives at the FCA—who have talked to me about the current climate there. There are issues around recruitment and, specifically, around the retention of skilled individuals, and how relations are breaking down to a rather concerning degree. If we want the FCA to do everything that the Government are saying they want it to, especially post-Brexit when we are moving regulation across, then we need a competent and effective FCA. I hope the Minister will take that point away. I am happy to have further conversations with him on the matter, so we can resolve the issue.

It seems particularly concerning that the FCA does not recognise any trade union. When comparable bodies such as the Bank of England recognise trade unions and the FCA does not, that seems to be indicative of the problematic workings of the FCA. I do not want to comment further on that, but I hope that the Minister takes that away as a serious point, because we cannot have effective regulation if we have ineffective working practice.

I was going to intervene on the Minister but I was pipped to it, because he sat down before I could. However, I wanted to mention clause 64, which is about providing insurance after terrorism incidents, so if insurance becomes too expensive, someone can continue to have insurance and the Government will step in. I thought that that was interesting because I have repeatedly raised in the House flood insurance, Flood Re, what happens if buildings are continually flooded and how we make sure that we have affordable flood insurance. It is very good that the Government want to introduce that provision for acts of terrorism, but I hope that the Minister will look more deeply into flooding and businesses’ concerns about that.

Let me turn to my main gripe with the Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will know exactly what I am going to say. As I mentioned to him in passing the other day, he is welcome to support any of my amendments, because he has heard all this before. I was disappointed that there was no provision on having regard to financial inclusion. It is great that there is a provision on having regard to the Climate Change Act 2008—the Labour party legislation—but there is nothing on financial inclusion. I will table amendments to give the FCA a cross-cutting “must have regard to financial inclusion” provision, and I genuinely call on Treasury Committee members to support them, as this was a recommendation from one of our reports. The proposals would include a statutory duty to report to Parliament annually on: the state of financial inclusion in the UK; the measures that the FCA has taken, and is planning to take, to advance financial inclusion; and recommended additional measures that could be taken by the Government and other public bodies to promote financial inclusion.

This is a bit of a no-brainer. We have a cost of living crisis, with people suffering from severe levels of debt and hardship. We have a Government who are potentially—though we are not quite sure—bringing forward massive amounts of borrowing to be heaped on taxpayers for years to come, and what I am proposing is free. When do we ever get to do that? I am proposing a small solution to the cost of living crisis that is absolutely free; it would address the poverty premium and ensure that the FCA “has regard” to financial inclusion.

I assume that the Minister will refer to the FCA consumer duty as an example of action that the Government are taking. However, that is not enforceable until July 2023—unless the new Prime Minister decides not to move it at all—and it does not address the fundamental problem of what happens to the clients that the market do not want. I am talking about those who are locked out and excluded from financial services. The previous FCA principles were about treating customers fairly, but that still does not address what happens if the market does not want someone.

What is the poverty premium, and what does that mean? In real life, that means people paying more for credit due to their credit rating, paying more for insurance because of where they live or past health issues and paying more for services, because they cannot benefit from direct debits or—as we have heard mentioned a few times—they need to use cash. I find it ludicrous that we have a situation where it costs more to pay in cash than it does in direct debit. We know exactly the kind of people that harms. Of course, the poverty premium is not limited to areas under the FCA’s remit. We have had previous debates about gas and electric and pre-payment meters, which I will not go into now, but the costs are very real.

Let me give an example from my Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle constituency, where nearly a fifth of constituents are affected. The poverty premium means that it costs them nearly £6 million more a year to access the same services and goods. If any Members who are listening are interested—especially those on their phones—they can look at the Fair By Design website, where they can look up their constituency and find out exactly how much the poverty premium is costing each and every one of them. This can be addressed by ensuring that the FCA “has regard to” financial inclusion.

Financial inclusion has been mentioned briefly, and I pay credit to the Government for what they are doing on credit unions. That is a good step forward, but this is always passed between the FCA, the Treasury, other regulators and Departments. Everyone nods very seriously and says how important it is. Someone says, “We must seriously do something about this but it is not actually our Department’s problem. It is someone else’s problem.” And the next person says, “Oh, this is really important. We must do something about it, but is not for our Department. It is their problem”—so the issue goes round and round with nobody actually taking responsibility. That is why having regard to financial inclusion is so important in terms of the FCA having a remit to actually look at this.

I am thinking particularly about insurance. A specific example is car insurance: people cannot drive without it, yet for so many it is simply unaffordable. That leads either to people driving without insurance or to their being unable to take on specific jobs because they simply cannot afford it. We need to do something about that.

My proposals, for which I will call for support across the House, will try to address it. They would end the current damaging situation by giving the regulator a clear remit and saying, “The buck stops here—you have regard to financial inclusion, so you need to look at this.” Sometimes that will mean the FCA taking a main role, and sometimes it will be others, but it will mean that the buck stops somewhere, so somebody has to take the issue seriously and look at the extra costs facing the most financially vulnerable in our society.

I also call on the Minister to introduce measures for groups facing digital exclusion and give them technological support with banking. Specifically, we need measures to ensure that blind and partially sighted people can access their finances and manage them independently.

I am very excited, because I keep asking to be on the Bill Committee and I think I have finally been given the nod. I look forward to discussing the Bill in more detail at every opportunity and through every clause as it goes through Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Wrexham. I remember her coming to see me to talk about the merits of this particular bid, which obviously has enormous popular support; the number of people who have signed her petition testifies to precisely that.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Real levelling up requires money, and that means everybody paying all the tax they owe. So why did the spring Budget allocate three times more additional funding to the Department for Work and Pensions than to HMRC to deal with fraud, when we know that every £1 spent on fraud in the DWP recovers £6, but every £1 spent on fraud in HMRC recovers £18? Why are the resources not prioritised to bring the greatest reward?

[Mr Clarke]

This is undoubtedly an important issue, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. Clearly, we are at a very important moment in the fight against fraud. Only next month, the new Public Sector Fraud Authority reporting to this Department and the Cabinet Office will go live, backed up by an additional £25 million over the spending review period. This represents increased resources for further support in terms of active measures on data, intelligence, risk and enforcement—all the things we need to do to crack down on fraud and to pursue the perpetrators.

Cost of Living: Fiscal Approach

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

On Sunday, Michael Lewis, the chief executive of E.ON, announced that 1 million of its customers were already in arrears with their fuel bills. He expects that to rise to half of all its customers—4 million people—by October. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research predicts that more than 1.5 million households will see a rise in food and energy bills that will outstrip their disposable income. That means a quarter of a million more families sliding into destitution. Of course, the Bank of England already expects inflation to reach double figures and fears that a recession is on its way. This situation is unprecedented and it demands urgent action from the Government, but none appears to be forthcoming. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this debate and I hope that the Minister can take away some suggestions for the Chancellor.

I want to focus in particular on the poverty premium. The rising cost of living hits those on the lowest incomes the most, through what is known as the poverty premium, which is a term for the hidden costs of poverty. Why does it exist? There are a number of reasons. Ideas about the fairness of essential products and services are based on an idealised version of the average person as a super-consumer. A super-consumer never becomes ill, always has a steady income that is sufficient to meet their outgoings, is able to understand all terms and conditions, and always has the time, energy and resources to shop around for and find the best deal. Clearly, that is a long way from reality for most people. There is a disconnect between policy makers and regulators, and the everyday experience of poverty and exclusion. This idealised consumer plays a role in that disconnect, as does the growing lack of social mobility, which means that an increasing number of policy and decision makers have no first-hand knowledge of what choices are actually like for someone experiencing hardship.

The ideological belief is that competition can meet all consumer needs and that freedom of choice exists for everybody. Even though we have seen markets fail time and again, with disastrous consequences, this nonsense is still held as an article of faith by the current Government. The question, then, is this: if the market is king, what happens to those people the market does not want? What that means is that policies and regulations are failing to acknowledge reality or to meet the needs of this large section of our population for whom the market does not wish to provide.

The poverty premium means, for example, that if someone cannot afford a direct debit bill for fuel payments and their income is uncertain, they pay more. If they are put on a prepayment meter because of problems paying the bill, they pay more. If they cannot afford to buy items in bulk or take advantage of multi-buy offers, they pay more. If they have an insecure income or a non-salaried job and they need a loan or credit card, they pay more. If they live in a deprived area and need car insurance to get to work, they pay more. That all adds up to extra costs that have a huge impact on those living in low-income households.

A study by Fair By Design shows that some households in places such as Hull face a poverty premium of £490. That is equivalent to 14 weeks of shopping—at least it was at the time of the study, but we expect that that sum will only have gone up. We can guarantee that, with inflation rising, the poverty premium is increasing all the time, such that the amount of food that people can buy is decreasing.

Whenever solutions to the poverty premium are proposed, or whenever questions are raised, the buck is passed between different Government Departments and regulators, and we go back to the earlier point—namely, that the market will provide. However, markets are not designed to be inclusive, and they do not have the necessary policies and guidance to achieve that. Therefore, the products that they provide are not designed to be inclusive either.

The good news, however, is that there is an opportunity to change this situation. The proposed financial services and markets Bill provides an opportunity to ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority “must have regard” to financial inclusion. A “must have regard” requirement would not pull the regulator into carrying out social policy, but ensure that the FCA has a statutory requirement to consider financial inclusion issues across all its work, wherever appropriate. It would also require the FCA to obtain the evidence it needs on market failures around financial inclusion, so that it can determine the areas of most detriment, how those issues can be resolved and which bodies are best placed to resolve them.

It is important to stress that neither the new consumer duty on which the FCA is currently consulting nor its consumer vulnerability guidance will address the situation, because both primarily deal with the treatment and the experience of consumers who already have access to those retail products, not the people I am talking about who are priced out of essential services because of the poverty premium. The only way to ensure that low-income or vulnerable customers can access essential services and products is to give the FCA a clear remit on financial inclusion.

This is a cost-free measure—it would not cost anyone anything. I will table amendments based on financial inclusion and I urge the Government, the Minister and all Members here to work with me in supporting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

Obviously, different people will experience different rises in the cost of living, depending on their circumstances. We absolutely recognise the rising cost of living, which is why we have already made a number of changes.

I will move on to the point that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central made about public sector pay, as did the hon. Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) by analogy. I recognise the important work that public sector workers have been doing during the pandemic and in the ordinary course of business, helping to support our world-class public services. Hon. Members will know that last year’s spending review confirmed that public sector workers will see pay rises across the whole spending review period from 2022-23 to 2024-25. Pay for most frontline workforces, including nurses, teachers, the armed forces and police officers, is set through an independent pay review body. We will consider all recommendations from pay review bodies this summer, once those final reports are submitted. I also point out that many public sector workers will benefit from the increase in the national living wage that I mentioned. Two million people, many of them public sector workers, will benefit from that.

The approved mileage allowance payments, which the hon. Members for Barnsley Central and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised, reflect all the running costs of a vehicle, including fuel and other vehicle expenses, such as servicing, insurance and depreciation; fuel is only about a third of the cost included in the rate. It is up to an employer what expenses they pay their employees. They do not have to use the allowance payment amounts, and can instead agree to reimburse the actual cost incurred. Individuals are not liable to pay tax on the difference as long as they can provide evidence of the expenditure. As with all taxes and allowances, we keep the rate under review.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central talked about NHS car parking charges. I am pleased that he recognised that NHS staff working night shifts benefit from no car parking charges, as do disabled people, frequent out-patient attenders and parents of sick children staying overnight, but I am happy to look into the matter further with officials.

I listened carefully to the ideas raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and for Easington (Grahame Morris). I have previously spoken to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the housing issue he raised. I valued that conversation, and I thank him for raising those points again.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that Labour restored people’s dignity, but the latest data shows that, compared with 2009-10, there are now 2 million fewer people in absolute poverty. The Chancellor, the Government and I are very proud of that statistic. I am very proud that, when Conservative Governments are in office—particularly this one—we have record unemployment, which allows people to earn a wage and support their families, whereas every single Labour Government has left office with unemployment higher than when they entered it.

I have set out a number of the measures that we have already taken to support people with the cost of living, which we absolutely recognise. We are also taking steps to boost the UK’s economy. I have not got time to go into all the measures today, but hon. Members know that the Chancellor has set out a long-term plan to boost the economy through capital, people and ideas, building on the progress that we have already made in in this area.

[Emma Hardy]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to push her a little further on financial inclusion. Will she meet me and the campaign group Fair By Design to look at the FCA’s remit with regard to financial inclusion and how we can reduce the poverty premium for people with the least money?

[Lucy Frazer]

I or another Minister would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that.

We are helping to deal with the cost of living, but the only way out of the rising inflation that we face is to grow the economy more broadly, and that is what we are doing. I reiterate that the Government stand ready to do more to support people across the UK who are struggling with cost of living pressures. We will take action to ease these burdens, where we can, in the short term, while exercising responsible economic leadership to deliver the conditions we need to prepare the UK economy for the future.

Tackling Short-term and Long-term Cost of Living Increases

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Two million British people cannot afford to eat every day, over 7 million people are considered to be food insecure, and over 2.5 million children say that they cut down on the amount they eat or do not eat when they are feeling hungry. But this is not just about data or statistics; it is about real people. I will share just some of the messages I have received from constituents in Hull West and Hessle.

One person tells me that they are paying over £320 more on their standing charges before they even use energy. They are trying to budget but they cannot. They feel victimised for being a low energy user. Another tells me that they have worked out that they will have £100 a month left after the cost of everything goes up. They are a single person of over 24 on universal credit who has diabetes and other health conditions. Another lady, Lynda, who worked full-time until she was 74, and is now 77 and living on the state pension, says:

“Because I tried to be sensible and save some money I am penalised and only get Pensions Savings Credit not guaranteed pension credit.”

She is worried about the future. The cases go and on.

We are facing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, but we would not know it having listened to the Government’s Queen’s Speech. The shameful slurs on struggling families about their failure to budget or cook should be utterly disregarded and ignored, and show how out of touch the Government are.

What can we do about this? I thank all the charities, faith groups and businesspeople in Hull West and Hessle for the work they are doing. In particular, I want to mention a local businessman, Gerard Toplass, who has made an offer across all his businesses to increase take-home money for staff who earn less than £50,000 a year. He says:

“We believe this is both an acknowledgment that we understand the pressures people are under and a practical demonstration of how important we believe our people are.”

He is giving all his workers an extra £60 a month. That is an example that I hope other businesses across the country will look at following.

The Government could increase universal credit payments, cancel the national insurance increase, cut VAT on fuel and, of course, bring in a windfall tax. But there is one more thing that I hope they will jump at the chance to implement, because it is cost-free measure that I am going to give them as an option to take the way: addressing the poverty premium. As we have heard, this is about poorer people having to pay more for things like financial services, energy and insurance. Through their financial services and markets Bill, the Government could instruct the Financial Services and Markets Authority and give it a clear remit on financial inclusion by including an aspect called “must have regard”. That would be a cost-free way to make a difference to some of the families struggling the most. I hope the Government will take this opportunity. If they do, I can guarantee my support.

Financial Statement

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is right to point out that the significant increase in personal tax thresholds is particularly well targeted at those on lower and middle incomes, and I look forward to discussing with him, over the coming months, potential reforms in the way in which we tax training and apprenticeships.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I have just received a message from Michael, who is a carer for his disabled wife in Hull. He says:

“So no help for the disabled. I guess I’ll have to put my wife into hospital next winter so she can stay warm”.

What would the Chancellor say to Michael, who does not drive a car and is not planning to install solar panels on his rented home?

[Rishi Sunak]

Obviously it is hard for me to comment on individual circumstances, but in general I am proud of this Government’s support for those who are disabled. We have spent some £58 billion on disability welfare. When I last checked the figures, the OECD ranked us higher than many other countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Austria, so we are generous and compassionate in our support for those who are disabled.

We are taking a range of measures, not least spending £1 billion to help people with disabilities into work and providing £1.5 billion for the disabled facilities grant to improve the conditions of their homes. Today we announced a small amount of extra funding to improve the provision of Changing Places toilets across the country, an issue about which I care passionately. That funding will increase their number by 40%, so that the quarter of a million people with complex disabilities who need access to such facilities will now find one closer to where they need it.

Tackling Fraud and Preventing Government Waste

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

As an hon. Member mentioned earlier today, this morning was the first we had seen of the Chancellor at the Dispatch Box since the beginning of December—perhaps we were lucky to see him today.

Disturbing reports of court cases are now emerging. They reveal how an organised crime leader, with no less than 48 previous criminal convictions, was handed £50,000 of taxpayers’ money. If only that were a one-off case. The same judge had seen, two months prior, a case where a drugs gang had been given a £25,000 Treasury bounce back loan. Well, good for them to bounce back! What about those who were excluded?

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an incredible speech. What we cannot forget are the stories we have heard, like the one from a woman in my constituency who had set up a business as a driving instructor. The rules the Government set meant that she was entitled to no compensation and no support whatever. She was left with no income and had to rely on food banks. As my hon. Friend says, at the same time that drug barons were being given taxpayers’ money, people in my constituency were given absolutely nothing and were forced to rely on charity. It is a disgrace.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully. I would like the Minister to explain, at the Dispatch Box, why drugs gangs got tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money when my hon. Friend’s constituents could not get a penny.

The Chancellor and other Ministers were warned repeatedly about the risk of fraud. In June 2020, the Chancellor was advised by the Fraud Advisory Panel, Transparency International, Spotlight on Corruption and the former director of the Serious Fraud Office that there were

“serious weaknesses that enable fraudsters and corrupt insiders to exploit the bounce back loan scheme and the covid business interruption loan scheme.”

and that that would create a “risk to the taxpayer”. They offered to provide the Chancellor with information, advice and support to improve the control of the funds, yet it seems the Government were not interested in that advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, he may hear about what the Government have been doing, and will continue to do.

The Government’s priority at the time was to get financial support to businesses. That was the alpha and omega of everything—it was to get that financial support to businesses, and their employees by extension, and as quickly as possible, to protect jobs and livelihoods. In total, we made available over £100 billion of loans and grants to over 1 million businesses, through bounce back loans, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, and business grants. There were myriad schemes that we were using.

[Emma Hardy]

The Minister’s defence—that this was a pandemic and the Government had to act quickly—does not seem to hold any water when we know that back in 2014 there were problems with Companies House. There were problems with international fraud and money laundering, and problems with how easily businesses could be set up through Companies House, yet the Government have dragged their feet; they have not taken action. That was years before the pandemic hit the United Kingdom. Had the Government taken action when they knew about the problems with Companies House, we probably would not be dealing with the amount of fraud that we are right now.

[Michael Ellis]

As it happens, we have given, as a Government, over £60 million to Companies House to continue its necessary reforms and we have undertaken myriad measures to prevent the problems that the hon. Lady refers to.

The first lockdown came into force on 23 March 2020. By 24 May, just a couple of months later, we had already paid out almost £28 billion in loans, rising to £80 billion by the time that the schemes closed on 31 March 2021—astronomical support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

As Mr Speaker says, a more detailed response can be given to my hon. Friend’s question in due course, but he is quite right to focus on the point about banks. More than 75,000 people have been contacted and could face criminal prosecutions and financial penalties. HMRC has already recovered more than £500 billion through other robust measures, including: building automated controls into the digital claims process, to prevent more than 100,000 mistaken claims; blocking more than 29,000 claims through pre-payment checks based on risk and intelligence; using cut-off dates around scheme eligibility; and requiring customers to be registered for pay-as-you-earn online and self-assessment. Nor is HMRC’s work done; work to recoup fraudulently obtained funds continues. Those identified face repaying up to double the amount they actually received, plus interest; in more serious cases, they risk criminal prosecution.

The motion also refers to public procurement, another area in which the Government take our responsibility to the taxpayer extremely seriously. In the case of personal protective equipment, our focus was on saving lives and protecting our healthcare workers. That was the top priority, and I make no apologies for that. But again, that did not mean, either then or now, that we were lax in our approach to procurement. We acted swiftly to secure and deliver more than 17.5 billion pieces of PPE to the frontline. The vast majority of the PPE we ordered—in the region of 97%—was suitable for use, either in the NHS or other non-medical settings.

My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary explained in a written statement to the House that the need to procure PPE at incredible speed necessarily involved a change in risk appetite. However, I am also clear that, at all times, the principles set out in “Managing Public Money” continued to apply, even under the pressures at the time. The Health Department took decisions on the basis of sound commercial advice. All transactions were approved by the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care clearance board. Treasury Ministers and officials made a calculated judgement that the costs of expediting normal processes were outweighed by the benefits to the health of the country. The health of our healthcare workers came first.

Importantly, as with alleged fraud relating to the covid support schemes, this is not over: the Government will pursue any contracts where there has been a technical failure or breach. I said that approximately 97% were okay, but we are pursuing those that were not, in line with the resolution process referred to in each contract.

[Emma Hardy]

On the issue of PPE procurement, which I have raised several times, it is frankly astonishing that the Government could not google “leading PPE equipment suppliers” and come up with the name Arco, which is a world leader in safety and PPE equipment. When it offered its services to the Government, it says that it was cold-shouldered and ignored, and that the Government went straight to those with connections to the Conservative party. It is disgraceful that the Government ignored a high-quality, world-leading company such as Arco.

[Michael Ellis]

I think the hon. Lady forgets that, at the time, the whole world was googling for PPE. There was a desperation for PPE. I do not know anything about the company that she mentions, but the reality is that there was a massive desperation to secure PPE for our healthcare workers.

The Government absolutely reserve the right to take legal action against suppliers where that is required, and the Treasury will continue to support the Department of Health and Social Care in doing whatever it needs to protect taxpayer money where there was a breach of contract. The House may also be interested to know that in cases where there is a significant surplus of PPE, we are passing that equipment to schools and public transport workers in this country, or we are donating it to other countries in need, alongside other efforts to sell or repurpose it.

The motion also refers specifically to defence projects. The Ministry of Defence is delivering some of the most complex and technically challenging programmes across Government. There is no doubt that defence acquisition has faced and continues to face some challenges, but we are working hard to address them. The National Audit Office has recognised that we are making progress. For example, in its March 2020 report, it noted that the MOD has reduced delays to delivering programmes over the last 10 years. We are determined to continue to build on that.

The financial settlement awarded to defence at SR20 has been a crucial opportunity for the MOD to move to a sound financial footing, and we are working hard with it to strengthen mechanisms to drive value for money, implement improvements in programme delivery and ensure that it can manage complexity, risk and the pace of technological change in a way that is rigorous and affordable.

This is not just about what we have already done; it is about constantly refining and improving the tools we have at our disposal. That is why we are committed to delivering reforms in the economic crime plan as well as those set out in the upcoming fraud action plan. The combination of last year’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy will provide economic crime funding totalling nearly £400 million over the spending review period.

Importantly, the Government counter-fraud function is leading a review into counter-fraud workforce and performance, delivered jointly with the Treasury. The aim of the review is to map the counter-fraud workforce and capability across central Government and selected agencies to identify current resources and how that links to each Department’s ability to prevent, detect and recover fraud and error losses.

To conclude, the purpose of the debate seems to be to try to talk down all that the Government have done on behalf of the taxpayer in the last two years, but I am afraid that the facts paint a different picture. We understand our responsibilities as a Government and will never take them lightly. We will act at all times quickly, effectively and responsibly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I have a lot to get through. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech later on, I am sure we will all be incredibly interested to hear what he has to say.

I have spoken at every opportunity, and Ministers have heard me at every opportunity, on the need for reform of Companies House, and it still baffles me why the Government are so lackadaisical about this clear open door to fraud. Companies House remains a repository of information, not a checking service. It is not an anti-money laundering supervisor. In answer to me at Treasury questions earlier, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury referred to the 2018 Financial Action Task Force report, but that still means four years of inactivity in this House. In 2018, as he will remember, we also had the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, a further missed opportunity to have closed this door and locked the fraudsters out.

Companies House has no connection with the UK Government’s Verify scheme, which is required for a passport, a driving licence or a tax return. For a minimal fee of only £12, someone can set up a company in the UK with no checks on who they are and what they intend to do with that company. Compare this with, for example, the £1,012 for a child to take up their right to citizenship. The money involved is absolutely baffling. Last year, in This is Money, Martin Swain, director of strategy, policy and external communications at Companies House, admitted:

“Even though, sometimes, we know that the information is incorrect or potentially fraudulent, the registrar is legally required to register it.”

The Companies House website even has a disclaimer at the top that says:

“Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed”.

Why is this being allowed to continue? Even a simple drop-down menu in the registration process would stop people putting in things like “Anytown, Anywhere” rather than a place that really exists.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and pointing out all the problems with Companies House. At the moment, as it says, it would take over 10 years, on the pace of change that we have from the Government, to see action taken on this, and all the time people are setting up these fraudulent companies.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The rate at which people are doing that should be causing the Government real fear, and it is not. This makes no sense at all. Every day that the Government allow it to continue, the register becomes more and more useless and more and more full of junk information and fraudulent transactions, and they should be embarrassed by that.

It has been a matter of public record for years that the Companies House register is utter guff. It contains names such as “Holy Jesus Christ”, whose nationality is listed as “angelic”, residence as “heaven” and profession as “creator”, and “Adolf Tooth Fairy Hitler”, listed as one of the clearly invented directors of a company calling itself Spypriest Ltd. There are also some highly precocious company directors who are only a few months old. Research by Global Witness in 2018 identified 4,000 listed beneficial owners under the age of two, including one who had yet to be born—talk about being born yesterday!— as well as five beneficial owners who controlled more than 6,000 companies. This is just not credible, and the Government know it.

During the past week, the Companies House expert Graham Barrow has been monitoring in real time the construction of a network of companies using real names but fictitious addresses. This leaves real people affected, but often unaware that their names are being abused—and difficult to contact, because the addresses are not real. It also affects the counter-fraud efforts to which the Minister referred. The people setting up those fake companies cannot be traced and chased down, and are allowed to get away with it.

It gets worse, however, because this open door at Companies House allows dirty money to be laundered through the UK. Oliver Bullough is one of many who have pointed out that kleptocrats from around the world have been abusing UK corporate structures—including Scottish limited partnerships—for years to shift their ill-gotten lucre. There are pressing implications for the current situation in Ukraine, but this is not new; it has been going on for years, completely unimpeded. The news that the National Crime Agency has today been able to seize £5.6 million from an Azerbaijani MP based in London is of course welcome, but that is short of the £15 million that the NCA wanted to seize. It is the tip of a massive iceberg. Duncan Hames of Transparency International has said that it estimates that the ruling elite of Azerbaijan own £700 million worth of property in the UK, and that about £2 billion has been shifted around Europe, some of it through our corporate structures. That makes the delaying of a registration of overseas entities Bill even more unacceptable, and even more baffling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I am slightly surprised to be called so early in the debate, but very grateful. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who spoke a lot of sense about Companies House in particular. I welcome the Opposition’s use of their time on this debate, as this is an important matter that goes to the heart of competence in what the Government are supposed to deliver: good decision making while acting prudently with the public purse. Let us be clear that fraud and waste of public funds are entirely unacceptable.

Before I continue, I should point to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For 10 years, before becoming an MP, I worked in fraud and financial crime, and the organisation I worked for chaired the Joint Fraud Taskforce. I should perhaps also start with an apology. I have heard the phrase “single transferrable speech” a few times in this place, and this might be my opportunity to make one. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) secured a debate on economic crime, and I will repeat some of the points I made in that debate, if the House will indulge me.

We would be right to be dismayed by some of the unrecovered sums from the various covid support measures, but we should not be quite so quick to jump down the Government’s throat. The recovery of such moneys, as the Minister said, takes time, and we must be realistic that the headline figure will look very different in six months’ time, let alone 12 months’ time. Having spoken to Ministers about this, I am reassured by their determination to drive down those figures further and further, and by the measures that they have already taken, but this is another reminder that we should be considering an economic crime Bill as a matter of urgency.

Here is where the single transferrable speech kicks in. I met the National Crime Agency a few years ago, and it had mapped an organised crime group and followed how it laundered the proceeds of economic crime, picking up money along the way from our constituents who had been defrauded, from people running small boats across the seas, from organised crime and from the dark web. The chain runs from telephone fraud across the channel and to the poppy fields of Afghanistan, and these groups are not rag-tag bunches of criminals; they are organised, they are not chancing their arm and they are deeply successful. They are not paying tax, and there are many of them out there.

As sure as eggs is eggs, some of the people who have been exploiting these Government schemes are connected to organised crime. They know how to manipulate the system, and they know how to avoid all the very good, robust checks that the Government mandated for the covid schemes. One of the things we need to do is tighten up the system and, again, there should be an economic crime Bill.

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly thoughtful speech, and so far I agree with all of it. Does he share my concern that the cut in Government aid means the National Crime Agency has had to put on ice its plan to grow the international corruption unit to look at this international form of organised crime?

[Simon Fell]

I do not know enough of the detail to answer that question responsibly, but what would unlock the power of the NCA is far more access to data and data sharing. If we can get people sharing robust, high-quality information from the public sector and the private sector, the NCA could draw down on some of this economic crime with the tools it already has.

Some of the people responsible for misusing and misappropriating Government funds are engaged in high-level economic crime, but we need to consider the circumstances of the time. These support schemes, as has been said, were set up in very quick order, and they were designed to help people and businesses that were facing a very imminent precipice. I think we all acknowledge that furlough and income support saved thousands of jobs and helped to aid the recovery and the buoyant economy we are now seeing as we leave the pandemic.

The Chancellor has been clear that he will do everything he can to get that money back and to go after those who took advantage of the pandemic, and the taxpayer protection taskforce, which has had a £100 million investment, is a welcome measure. It is a good demonstration that the Government are working together and pulling together.

We should also consider what has already been achieved. Last year, the Government stopped or recovered nearly £2.2 billion-worth of potential fraud in bounce back loans and £743 million in overclaimed furlough grants, but we cannot afford to take our eye off the ball. Fraud is the No. 1 volume crime in the UK. It is an epidemic that is out of control, and we simply do not have enough of a grip on it. I will repeat myself: we need an economic crime Bill to give law enforcement the tools they need to collaborate better with the private sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). It has been a really interesting debate. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is not in his place, because, like the hon. Member for Glenrothes, I thought his comments on whistleblowing were really important. The importance of protecting those who call out economic crime is not often raised in this place.

Since 2019, economic crime has increased. Action Fraud has talked about a 36% increase in fraud offences for the year ending June 2021, compared with the year ending June 2020, and a 51% increase in financial investment fraud. I cannot remember who said it, but an earlier speaker in the debate pointed out the emotional upset that comes with fraud. It is worth contemplating for a moment that people who are defrauded can feel incredibly, personally hurt by it. It has a huge impact on them.

We need to look at a system that is fairer. One of the things that we like to say about this country when asked to describe it is that it is generally a fair and just country, but the system we have at the moment does not feel fair or just. It has been mentioned many times that the fraud relating to bounce back loans amounted to around £4.9 billion. When we include the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employment scheme and eat out to help out, we are looking at a total of £5.8 billion in overall fraud losses. It is worth remembering the comments made by Lord Agnew in his article in the Financial Times on 25 January. What he said was important, because it was not just about the loans introduced because of the coronavirus pandemic. He said:

“Fraud in government is rampant. Public estimates sit at just under £30 billion a year. There is a complete lack of focus on the cost to society, or indeed the taxpayer.”

Those are the words of the Government Minister who has just resigned in the Lords. It was not just a comment on the bounce back loans or coronavirus. He said that

“fraud in government is rampant”,

and as the anti-fraud Minister, surely he should know. In the same article he went on to say:

“The government machine has failed spectacularly both in the business department in its weak oversight of the British Business Bank and in the Treasury for allowing such dysfunctionality to continue on such a colossal scale.”

One of the Government’s own Ministers is making those comments about the level of fraud we have in government. That is absolutely shocking.

As I said in an earlier intervention, I am concerned that some of these problems are long-lying, not immediate or concerned just with the recent coronavirus pandemic. The National Crime Agency is unable to grow its international corruption unit because of cuts to the UK aid budget. One part of the Government is making changes such as cuts to UK aid—I still cannot understand the justification for that—and that will impact on our ability to tackle international fraud. We know that tackling fraud is under-resourced and under-invested. One third of all reported crime is fraud, but tackling it has only 1% of police resources. Of course we need an economic crime Bill, and we also need the Online Safety Bill. Had the Government not been so tied up in desperately trying to save the Prime Minister, we might be seeing some concrete action on the things that really matter.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has been before the Treasury Committee, of which I am a member, and he spoke about Companies House. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made a good speech, detailing all the difficulties and concerns about Companies House, but again, we have known about that since 2014—it is not new. The Government’s defence that, “Oh, we had to do things quickly because of the coronavirus pandemic, and this is why we have problems”, simply does not wash. We know there has been under-investment in tackling fraud because we do not have the resources the police need, and we know that the international aspect of that is under-invested in further because of cuts to UK foreign aid. We know there have been problems in Companies House since 2014, which the Government keep talking about and failing to take action on.

Reform of Companies House is essential. We cannot allow UK companies to be used to launder money and conduct economic crime. The pace of change is too slow, and if we continue with our current speed, we will not see the action needed for another 10 years. Transparency International UK has identified 929 UK companies involved in 89 cases of corruption and money laundering. That equals—I think this will shock most Members present—£137 billion in economic damage. That is not a small amount of money. We are talking about huge amounts of cash.

The three consultations launched by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which were looking at Companies House, closed on 3 February 2021. Since then we have seen nothing; two years later, nothing. Where is the legislation to bring the changes and funding that we need to reform Companies House? This goes back to the point I made at the beginning of my speech: this is a question of fairness and justice. It is not just about the pandemic. I understand why the Government want to blame all the mistakes on the pandemic and the need for urgent action, but the problems are much deeper than that.

When we think again about what we could have spent that money on, that is where it becomes quite difficult. I have been contacted by many of the excluded community, who are really upset about the lack of support they have been given, the bankruptcy they faced, the need to go to food banks or claim benefits for the first time, and how unfair they think that is when they see how much money went out in fraud. It is not just them, because we have seen the same with social care. I have mentioned in the House on a number of occasions the Conservative-led East Riding of Yorkshire Council, of which my constituency is small part. It has a desperate need for money to deal with the number of elderly people who need care. It has a deficit of £1.4 million for the current year, and it needs more to offer competitive wages. We have people in the East Riding of Yorkshire not getting the care they need because the local council does not have the money it needs to fund it properly.

We cannot talk about this issue without relating it back to normal life. If we are talking about wasting £4.3 billion, that is £4.3 billion that is desperately needed by other people across our country—people struggling with the cost of living, excluded members of the community and people not getting the care and support they need. It is ludicrous, as others have said, that we have a Prime Minister who spent £900,000—it is hilarious—employing a consultant to tell him that he could not build a bridge from Scotland to Ireland. My goodness me. I am sure someone out there has a tin of tartan paint that they could sell to the Prime Minister for around £900,000. If not, I am sure someone in my constituency could make the same offer. Or perhaps a ladder to the moon could be the next scheme the Government would like to invest in. I could offer myself as a consultant to look into the matter for him.

What we need, seriously, is an economic crime Bill, and we need it now. There is time in the parliamentary timetable to look at it. We need to a register of overseas interests. That was promised under David Cameron and by successive Conservative Prime Ministers, but we still have not seen it. We need reform of Companies House, and we need that to be accelerated. I have respect for the Minister. I am sure he wants to reform Companies House, too, and I urge him to make that change urgently—sooner rather than later. I also ask him to include the investigative arm in the resourcing of Companies House, so that it is not just about filing companies’ details but could look into the legitimacy of some of the companies that want to register. Finally, we need the implementation of all the recommendations of the Russia report from 2020.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

A local businessman in my constituency would love to be able to invest, but he is facing business ruin because he made an order to China for some fireplace tiles worth £15,000 and, because of anti-dumping duty, customs duty and various other taxes, he is going to be charged £43,000 of costs for a £15,000 order. He is a sole business person and he is facing bankruptcy. I have contacted HMRC about this, but I seem to be hitting a dead end, so will the Minister please look into this matter and see if anything can be done to help him?

[Lucy Frazer]

If the hon. Member wants to give me the details of her constituent’s case, I would be very happy to look into it.

Community Debt Advice Services

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reductions in community debt advice services.

It is a pleasure to serve, even if very briefly, under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who have supported me on this issue from the very beginning and who are all here today.

I will start by giving a brief outline of the cost of living crisis and then go into the importance of face-to-face debt advice, before looking at the potential model that the Money and Pensions Service will introduce and finishing with my specific requests for the Minister. For brevity, I will refer to the Money and Pensions Service as MaPS; otherwise, we will end up spending an awfully long time just on the title.

A survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in early October this year showed that the number of UK households that are behind on rent, bills or debt repayments has trebled since the pandemic hit, and now stands at nearly 4 million. The pandemic has dragged families who were previously just about managing into arrears on essential bills, and we know that economic pressures are getting worse. Those in receipt of universal credit are beginning to feel the effects of the £20-a-week cut—a cut that Labour, of course, opposed. The ban on evictions has ended, domestic fuel prices are rising and the collapse of providers means that many people have already been transferred to new companies on higher tariffs. As fixed-term plans end, more people will face increased energy bills, and that is before the energy cap is uplifted in April. The Chancellor has it in his powers to reduce VAT on fuel but has chosen not to do so. Workers also face an increase in national insurance. Inflation is rising and is now around 4%, and many expect it to remain at that level until mid-2022.

This is all creating a cost of living crisis, and an increasing number of people will find themselves needing advice and support with debt—many for the first time. Currently, debt advice is provided by a network of local providers and national charities such as Citizens Advice, and they are funded through nine regional grants from MaPS.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Outside the usual services, a number of charities I have met recently have reported that people are approaching them for debt advice or asking to be signposted. The third sector is already struggling to obtain funding in my constituency. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is unfair to expect charities to shoulder most of the burden?

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely agree. As I have outlined, we expect more people to seek debt advice, and the burden will fall on those who provide it at the moment. I pay tribute to all those who currently provide support and debt advice. Some are volunteers, but they often deal with complex cases and they work with sensitivity and compassion to help people at extreme times of personal crisis. Over 100,000 people attempt suicide each year because of debt, so the services that these organisations provide can literally be life-saving.

Lots of people need face-to-face debt advice for a huge a variety of reasons. There is the obvious reason—that they do not have the technology or the internet—but it is not just that. Debt advice clients are often vulnerable. For many, this is due to personal factors such as disability, language barriers, alcohol or substance abuse or mental health conditions. In fact, debt advisers tell me that 82% of their clients have concerns around mental health. But many others are vulnerable due to a change in circumstances—to quote the famous phrase, “We are all just two pay cheques away from being in the same situation.” People get into debt because of bereavement, loss of employment, poor health or domestic abuse. Face-to-face advice provides a safe, supportive environment for a person to seek help.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and she is making a very powerful speech. Supported by Unite the union, a number of debt agencies in my constituency, including the Ebor Gardens Advice Centre, Money Buddies, St Vincent’s and Better Leeds Communities, are seriously concerned that the renegotiation of the MaPS contract will lead to a dramatic reduction in face-to-face advice. Does she agree that it is precisely in the most complex cases, which she is talking about, where people have a carrier bag full of papers, that those agencies, which do a fantastic job, need to be able to see a person face-to-face in order to give them the best possible help to get out of the debt that is weighing on their shoulders?

[Hannah Bardell in the Chair]

[Emma Hardy]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. As debt advisers say, the first face-to-face appointment can be extremely emotional for many people. Sometimes it is the first time they have ever told anybody about their debt problems. For a number of reasons, they might not be able to discuss them at home. Sometimes people feel ashamed and unable to tell their partner that they are suffering from debt. They do not want to be seen as not being able to cope. They could also be a victim of financial abuse—a form of domestic abuse—and they might not want to tell someone of the situation they are in. Sometimes, as my right hon. Friend said, they have accumulated so much correspondence that they are afraid to open it. Bringing those letters to a face-to-face appointment provides the emotional support they need to address the problem.

Debt is often multifaceted. It is a mistake to think that it is an easy financial problem that can be solved by someone at the end of a telephone following a flow chart and using a script. It is not, and nor is it as easy as someone clicking options on a website. People might start with information from a website, then use the phone and finally need a face-to-face appointment with a case adviser. Those face-to-face advisers know their community. They are not just experts in debt advice; they have links to other charities, councils, jobcentres and even local bailiffs. As debt advisers, they have a relationship with those organisations, and they can speak to them and sometimes resolve the problem. When someone enters Citizens Advice with debt advice problems, there are experts there checking what benefits someone is entitled to and that they are getting them. They might say, “Here is where you can get mental health support in the community.” They know the area because they are based there. Moving services to national or regional call centres breaks that connection, which is a disadvantage to everyone.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She knows well the high levels of indebtedness in Hull. The fact that there is such an excellent service operating through our local citizens advice bureau is of huge benefit to many people. We know that demand is only going to get higher with the cost of living crisis, which she has so ably outlined. Does she think that having a hybrid system, where there is accessibility through face-to-face appointments as well as telephone advice, is the way to go, rather than moving to telephone advice only?

[Emma Hardy]

As I mentioned at the start, my right hon. Friend has been with me from the beginning, looking at this issue and campaigning on it. She is absolutely right. I accept that some people might want to access more virtual appointments and information on a website, but it cannot come at the expense of the face-to-face component. We cannot lose that face-to-face part.

MaPS is changing the way funding is provided. Although, it is increasing the money for debt advice—I want to acknowledge that, and it is set to increase to £77 million in April 2022—the bulk of that funding is moving to call centres and online services. At a meeting on 17 November, the MaPS chief executive and commissioning team told We Are Debt Advisers, which is a group representing debt advisers, that 20% of the £77 million had been allocated to face-to-face appointments. That amounts to £15.4 million. They also said that regional providers currently spend 56% of their existing £33 million on delivering this way, which is £18.5 million. By their own admission, this is a cut of just over £3 million to face-to-face services. That is made worse by the replacement of the grant system with contracting, which in its current form will exclude many smaller providers active in the sector from being able to bid for contracts at all.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her work on this issue. She makes a powerful point about the shift in priority, and therefore funding, from face-to-face debt advice to online and telephone advice. In South Yorkshire, there are currently 28 funded face-to-face debt advisers, but that will go down to seven. Pre pandemic, in Rotherham alone, the number of new face-to-face debt inquiries each year was 2,200. In the context that she has set out of rising prices, bills and taxes, she might question Ministers whether, if the Treasury or MaPS have evidence to suggest that the demand for face-to-face debt advice will go down, not up, and to justify these cuts, they will publish that, and then we will all be better informed and more confident about the future.

[Emma Hardy]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who has been campaigning on this issue from the very beginning. He is absolutely right: all the forecasts—all of them—show that demand for debt advice will only increase. We know that. We also know that cases can be complex and that it can sometimes be the first time that people have got into debt. So the idea that we would cut face-to-face advice at this time seems incomprehensible.

Under the new tender, MaPS will instead have three national contracts. Its staff met me—I credit them for that—and said that these will be a mix of face-to-face, digital and phone services, with one each for the north, the midlands and the south of England, and a separate arrangement for a national call centre. However, three regional contracts, instead of nine smaller ones, as it was before, means that small, local providers that currently rely on MaPS funding for the bulk of their income face having to drop face-to-face services or close entirely. Many already know that they are not included in tender bids because they do not have the size or resources to compete individually for these tenders. Sylvia Simpson, chair of the Leeds Debt Advice Network, described the impact as “catastrophic”, with three out of four local MaPS-funded debt agencies no longer able to provide debt advice after 31 March. There are serious doubts about the rationale for the decision to restructure funding. Where is the evidence to support it and its timing? Does MaPS have confidence in the outcome itself?

Debt advisers tell me that there has been no proper consultation. In the face of the national outcry from debt advice organisations, charities and trade unions, MaPS issued a two-week call for evidence concerning the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on access to debt advice. That concluded on 29 October, but the procurement exercise for the new contracts had already taken place. The consultation will not influence a procurement process that has already gone on, so what was its purpose? It is clear that the procurement exercise expected bidders to focus on digital and telephone-based services rather than face-to-face services, despite MaPS’ own evidence showing that demand for face-to-face services was almost double supply.

A 2019 MaPS assessment of the need for debt advice said:

“Face-to-face is the channel with the smallest gap between demand and supply at the national level. Nevertheless, the levels of unmet demand are high, with demand being over two times higher than supply. It is also the channel with the biggest variation in unmet demand between countries and regions. Face-to-face unmet demand is particularly high in London, where existing supply of face-to-face debt advice could meet only just over a fifth of current demand.”

MaPS does not seem to have evidence that the need for face-to-face services will fall. On 29 November, in reply to a letter sent on 16 November from the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), MaPS provided figures showing that, for the last pre-pandemic year, 2019-20, face-to-face services accounted for 34% of its consultations. That fell by only 3 percentage points, to 31%, in 2020-21, despite the fact, let us not forget, that this was during a global pandemic that involved lockdowns, compulsory mask wearing, the adoption of social distancing and people being afraid to leave their homes. Despite all that, the demand for face-to-face debt advice fell by only three percentage points. In its letter to the Treasury Committee, MaPS notes that its most recent modelling of future demand is from autumn 2020 which, as we will remember all too well, was just before another national lockdown and before the pandemic’s third wave brutally hit, killing thousands of people in our country. That is when the modelling was done. MaPS does not say whether the modelling includes the impact of the pandemic, but I think we can assume it probably did not.

On the importance of face-to-face appointments, MaPS said that the forecast

“did not make distinctions between case complexity or channel of provision.”

If someone has a simple debt inquiry, they would probably google it and look on a website, or they might phone someone up and check. If their case is extremely complex—I refer to my earlier points on domestic abuse, mental health and such concerns—accessing a website is not going to be suitable. MaPS needs to be looking at complex cases and how it provides support.

In other words, the modelling does not tell MaPS how much demand for face-to-face appointments to expect, and the contract does not give it control over how much can be provided. MaPS claims that changes will increase accessibility to advice in those difficult-to-reach places, but those changes could mean the opportunity for face-to-face advice would no longer exist in some areas of the country. I accept—I was discussing this point with the Minister earlier—that some areas could end up with more access to advice, but that is at the expense of other areas.

In the letter, MaPS mentions an equalities and vulnerability impact assessment. That has not been made available and I hope the Minister is able to use his influence to say to MaPS that it should be published. At the moment, MaPS is saying to me, “We do not know, because we are still commissioning. We are not sure how much will be face to face; we are not sure how much will be on the phone or remote. We haven’t made any decisions.” If that is true and it does not know where it is going to end up, how can it have done an equalities and vulnerability impact assessment? When MaPS has made up its mind about what it wants, I assume another impact assessment will be needed. I hope that one is made public.

I hope I have explained clearly why face-to-face advice is the only way of supporting a significant proportion of people in debt, and why a reduction in capacity and coverage will fail some of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that MaPS does more to reach out more effectively to practitioners with a lifetime of experience and knowledge in the field. Debt advice groups such as AdviceUK believe that MaPS’ vision for debt advice is deeply flawed, does not meet the needs of the diverse communities across England and does not enable the provision of flexible, in-depth and sustainable debt advice services.

MaPS cannot explain why it has made the funding allocations it has done or what impact they will have on people with complex needs. Of course, the pandemic has been a huge disrupter. Its effects are still being played out and the future remains hard to predict, but we do know that there will be an increase in the number of families in debt. We know that we are only beginning to see the devastating impact of the cost of living crisis. I hope the Minister is able to use all the influence he has—accepting, of course, that MaPS is a separate organisation and that this is a commercial contract—to call on MaPS to place an immediate hold on the procurement of new debt advice contracts, pending a thorough and effective consultation into the likely demand for face-to-face services in the near future; and to insist that there should be no loss of debt adviser jobs and an increase in funding for community-based face-to-face services. Consultation with frontline advisers through their trade union should also be essential for all future decisions affecting jobs and service delivery.

I finish by reminding the Minister of my earlier comment: more than 100,000 people attempt suicide each year because of debt. The services these organisations provide can literally be life-saving. Having the right debt advice is too important to get wrong.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

I now call the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on debt and personal finance, Yvonne Fovargue.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I have not personally, but I am happy to look into that. We have to look holistically at the range of new providers and what insights we can gain to improve the services offered. MaPS has factored the concern about sensitivity to the mode of delivery and the complexity of customers’ needs into its commissioning process by requiring bidders to engage in effective promotion and outreach to customers who will most benefit from the service.

[Emma Hardy]

One thing I am keen for MaPS to look at is the move towards three regional models. I made the point in my speech that smaller providers simply cannot bid for those large contracts. It appears it is by choice, although it is not—they cannot continue to access the contracts because they are too small. The move is from nine to three.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. The significant concern that the outcome of the commissioning exercise will leave a smaller number of providers that are somewhat detached from local communities and specific needs must be addressed through the process. It would be undesirable for that detachment to lead to a lack of confidence in the new configuration, and MaPS will need to address that directly in how it responds.

When the outcome is secure, it is important that customers’ needs are diagnosed, that they have tailored support, and that providers collaborate to ensure that customers can be referred in a seamless manner when they can be better served by another service within the provision available. I recognise the point that that is not always possible if there is a level of comfort in a specific physical location. How that will be transferred efficiently needs to be looked at. MaPS has not dictated the channel through which advice needs to be provided, although it has required local provision in its regional lots. That is to allow bidders to innovate and compose a service that is aligned to MaPS’ requirements but is also informed by that intimate local knowledge, skills and experience.

A few people mentioned potential adviser redundancies. I will not be able to say anything more until bids are evaluated, and I think colleagues will understand that. However, we strongly encourage MaPS to take all reasonable steps to support the process and use its role as a market steward. That means supporting, where possible, any transfer of undertaking activities that the organisations involved may need to carry out to ensure continuity of employment for debt advisers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am incredibly grateful for those final comments from the Minister. We all accept that we could not have expected a pandemic and we do not know what will happen in the next year. As my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), said, let us have a pause in the process, look again and see what happens to the economy in the next 12 months. Let us see what happens if there is another variant and, my goodness, let us hope that there will not be another lockdown. We do not know what will happen, so I would like to push for a pause in the re-evaluation.

I thank everybody who has spoken today for their expertise, passion, emotion and understanding. The biggest message that has come through is that nothing can compensate for having a real person there. A screen cannot give someone a hug or make them a cup of tea. A person on the end of the phone cannot pass them a tissue when they are crying or offer to entertain their children while going through their debt payments. That compassion from one human to another cannot be replaced in a virtual way, and that is what we are talking about. The majority of people in the country are two pay cheques away from poverty. We cannot typecast the people who need this support. We can only say, “Let’s hope it will never be any of us”, but if it were one of us, I would want somebody there to hold my hand, make me a brew and tell me that they will help me get through it, and that is why face-to-face matters so matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reductions in community debt advice services.