The Economy

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney).

It does seem rather bizarre to be talking about a Queen’s Speech that the Government have no intention or any ability to implement, and I would not exactly describe myself as a monarchist but I do think the way the Prime Minister has treated Her Majesty through all this is shameful.

First, I want to touch on the implications for the UK. The Government say:

“The integrity and prosperity of the union that binds the four nations of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance to my Government”

and Scotland will see a £1.2 billion cash bonus as a result of the latest spending round, but this Queen’s Speech ends freedom of movement, which will have a disproportionate impact on Scottish sectors, and even by the least damaging Brexit that would mean a reduction in Scottish GDP of 2.7%, and we know that a disastrous no-deal exit could mean a loss of economic output for Scotland of as much as £12.7 billion by 2030.

And it is not just prosperity in Scotland that is under threat from the Government; so too is the very existence of the United Kingdom itself. We have seen over a decade of austerity that Scotland did not vote for; we had David Cameron’s English votes for English laws speech on the steps of Downing Street on 19 September 2014; of course we had the Brexit referendum in 2016; and now we have this Government’s reckless deal, which tears up workers’ rights and simply delays a no-deal Brexit until the end of next year. The Conservative party, in truth, has done almost as much as the Scottish National party to undermine the United Kingdom. It is no longer the Conservative and Unionist party; it is the Conservative and Brexit party.

I was deeply disappointed, once again, to see nothing for 1950s-born women who are being denied a pension. That is a huge missed opportunity. Just as we are seeing with PPI repayments, we could have seen a boost for the economy had those women been paid what is rightfully theirs. As one of the leading members of the local WASPI branch in my area put it,

“these women are not going to be squirrelling this money away in offshore accounts.”

It will be spent in our local towns and on our high streets. However, the campaign will go on and I can assure them of my continued support.

Lastly, I want to touch on the lack of any new measures to protect free access to cash. I have been campaigning on that issue since my election. It has become increasingly clear, from the work of consumer rights groups, from international examples, from what is happening in many of our constituencies and from reports like the Access to Cash review, that this issue will not simply resolve itself. The banks have made a conscious decision to shift responsibility for running ATMs to private companies, and now they have decided that they really do not want to have to pay for that either. So the pressure they have put on LINK means that the fee being paid to the operators has been cut, and we are now seeing free-to-use ATMs closing, or turning fee-charging. That is having a particularly difficult impact in rural communities and in small towns such as those in my constituency, where businesses on the high street are already struggling and do not need any new additional barriers, such as a lack of availability of cash.

The Joint Authorities Cash Strategy Group, which the Government have set up to look at this issue, is no more than a talking shop.

[John Glen]

indicated dissent.

[Ged Killen]

The Minister shakes his head, but what has that actually done since it was set up? The Government have to get real, or millions of people—some of the most vulnerable in society—will be left behind in a so-called cashless society.

In conclusion, this is a completely unnecessary Queen’s Speech, which has wasted everyone’s time and will do nothing at all for my constituents in Rutherglen and Hamilton West.

IR35 Tax Reforms

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered IR35 tax reforms.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gapes. We are now a year out from the Government’s extension of the IR35 rules to the private sector, and we are halfway through the Treasury’s further technical consultation, which is due to conclude on 28 May. Although the IR35 reforms are a complicated issue, I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for us to add something to the process, raise the concerns of constituents who will be affected by the changes, and flag up to the Minister our anxieties about the IR35 roll-out into the private sector.

The rules have been a long time in the making. It was in the late 1990s that concerns began to creep across Whitehall that private service companies were becoming a widely utilised tool to disguise worker status, allowing some workers to perform the role of an employee while they and the employer reaped the tax benefits of a business-to-business relationship. We all want to tackle non-compliance and tax avoidance and close any loophole that allows an employee to leave their employment on a Friday and return to the same role in the same office on the Monday as a contractor or consultant through a PSC, paying less tax. The question, however, is how it is being tackled and what impact it will have on legitimate small businesses and the clients who engage them.

The last Labour Government introduced provisions to allow the tax authorities to take a closer look at contractual relationships to identify where an intermediary, such as a PSC, may be being used to avoid tax contributions and associated workers’ rights. That legislation, known as IR35, was introduced in 2000 following the March 1999 Budget statement. It was a controversial measure at the time, and calls to scrap it came from different parties. However, although the initial implementation created problems that still bedevil the modern IR35 rules, the legislation took important steps to avoid a contraction of the tax base as self-employment increased across the UK labour market and to ensure that where individuals acted as employees, they were treated as such.

In many ways, the objectives of the original IR35 rules were significantly ahead of their time. The growth of self-employment in the UK economy has produced several structural problems, with employment status and the gig economy leading to situations in which employers can privatise the reward of lower-cost labour through tax avoidance, but socialise the risk that comes from cutting corners, with the costs borne inevitably by the public purse.

The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, on which I sit, has looked closely at the impact that unclear worker status can have on the wider economy. Our inquiry considered the findings of the Taylor review and supported its conclusion that there is an “overwhelming case” to tackle the lack of clarity around employment status. We also supported its recommendation that the Government should produce

“a clearer outline of the tests for employment status, setting out the key principles in primary legislation”.

Perhaps at the moment the Government lack the necessary bandwidth and political capital to follow through fully on the review’s recommendations, but that is ultimately where we must end up.

One of the major issues with the IR35 changes is the great difficulty in assessing whether an individual should be caught by the rules. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ guidance and tools are far from 100% effective, and there is a lot of complex case law. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister said what progress the Government have made on the issue and on the Taylor review’s recommendations.

It is impossible to look at the myriad changes that the labour market is likely to go through in the coming decades and not conclude that legal clarifications will need a serious rethink, particularly to secure the integrity of the tax base that will be all too important in an ageing society. In many ways, the IR35 rules are a stopgap in the journey towards a statute book that supports 21st-century employment practices and the realities of modern workers’ lives. I have no doubt that the objective of the reforms is correct, but their implementation threatens to scupper any associated benefits.

The roll-out of the IR35 rules in the public sector has raised several concerns that need to be ironed out. Independent research has highlighted problems in implementing the reforms, including initial unfamiliarity with the legislation and guidance, which has resulted in compliance problems. Many public authorities were found to be overly cautious or to have judged more contractors to fall within the rules than they should have.

The incentive, of course, is on the fee payer to take a cautious approach rather than leave themselves potentially vulnerable to future tax liabilities. If there are agencies in the contractual chain, it is the agency immediately above the PSC in the chain that becomes the fee payer and is therefore responsible for the liability of an incorrect status decision, so an agency is unlikely to dispute a decision that brings the contractor within IR35 even when it should not be. I know that the Government are exploring options for the consequences for businesses that fail to use reasonable care in making a decision. Will the Minister update us on progress in that area?

Concerns have also been raised about the reforms’ impact on the ability of public authorities to recruit contractors in sufficient numbers and with the required range of skills, as a result of which the rates for off-payroll workers have increased in some areas. Some contractors have been put off working in the public sector at all.

Many of those problems in the public sector have been solved, or at least mitigated, but the private sector presents a very different problem, with significantly greater variation, potentially weaker channels of communication and less room for manoeuvre when things go wrong. That has led a number of membership organisations, including the CBI, to call on the Government to extend the trial period in the public sector and offer extra resources to support the initial roll-out when the private sector is eventually included. The CBI was so concerned that it even went as far as to ask the Government to eliminate the prospect of an early roll-out in 2019.

We are in a state of great uncertainty about our future relationship with the European Union and its likely impact on businesses, the economy and private sector recruitment. I wonder whether the Government will consider delaying the roll-out beyond 2020 if it is deemed necessary. I have received representations from constituents who operate as contractors and have enormous reservations about the extension of these rules, and I am sure other hon. Members have received such representations.

One constituent who came to my surgery set out his concerns about the complexity of the system. He has deep reservations about whether it could be implemented successfully and about the costs when things go wrong. He says:

“I have no idea how clients will assess my work when the responsibility transfers to them, and neither do they”.

He believes there will be widespread non-compliance as clients struggle to make assessments and default to playing it safe. He works in IT, and also has deep fears about where ultimate liability will rest. I know the idea is that the fee payer is responsible, but contractors are looking at recent HMRC decisions about various schemes that were deemed legal when they were set up, which are now leaving individuals with massive retrospective tax bills. There is a worry that poor application of the rules now could end up meaning that individuals face bankruptcy later down the line if they are chased for payment.

My constituent sums up his concerns by wondering if there will be any point in continuing as a contractor at all. Among the reasons, he cites potential problems for processing expenses. In the public sector, we have heard about the removal of the 5% allowable deduction from the income of personal service companies for general expenses incurred in running the business. If all engagements are treated as caught by IR35, all the income accounted for is either tax, national insurance contributions or net pay, so there is nothing to set running costs against.

My constituent also says that the situation could lead to him setting up an umbrella company, which would increase costs. He is seriously concerned about that, as he is about the potential for disproportionate costs to be passed on to the contractor by clients. He says:

“Ultimately, if the benefits are removed from me and I am actually paying more tax than a regular employee, with none of the rights, then I have a difficult choice to make. What will my clients do if they cannot source flexible skills in the contract market due to many others doing the same as me? They have two choices: one is to hire an employee, which defeats the ‘flexibility’ argument. If they cannot hire an employee just for the duration of a project, they will most likely go to a large organisation, such as IBM or Capita who will charge them 2-3 times the contractor day rate.”

My constituent makes the important point that those large companies are much more likely to have sophisticated tax and legal expertise at their disposal than small businesses such as his.

What my constituent says about being treated as an employee for tax purposes while not enjoying the same employment rights is crucial. I know that the Government are aware of that point, and I would be grateful if the Minister would update us on their current thinking. I am sure that the Minister will recognise many of the concerns that my constituent has highlighted, as they reflect much of what has been raised by private sector interest groups and in Government consultations.

As I said before, the aims of the IR35 rules are right, but the prospect of their implementation has fostered a very bleak view indeed. The substance of this implementation must therefore be better, as the rules will be wholly self-defeating if, by their very nature and complexity, they force contractors out of the market or encourage more sophisticated forms of tax avoidance. I am sure all of us here would agree that the aim is to allow flexibility where needed, while ensuring that revenue and rights are not lost where a contractor effectively becomes an employee.

I have asked the Minister for quite a lot of things. When he is summing up, I hope he can provide a further update on the use of the IR35 rules in the public sector, particularly around compliance with the rules, uptake and concerns that companies are exiting the public sector market because of those rules. I hope he will summarise the key lessons the Government have learned from the public sector roll-out and how they are being adjusted to suit the different nature of the private sector. Will he clarify whether the Government have any ambitions or plans to further roll out the IR35 rules to small businesses in the private sector? Will he also give an update on how the IR35 rules sit in the Government’s wider consideration of the recommendations of the Taylor review?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s instinct that tax simplification is how all Governments should seek to develop tax reforms. I will make some observations about that later.

As we have heard, the Government have set about extending the reform of the rules that govern off-payroll working. Those rules, known as IR35, were introduced in 2000—in fact, in the previous year’s Budget—to ensure that people working through their own company, who but for the existence of that company would be taxed as employees, pay broadly the same tax and national insurance as other employees. The rules do not affect the genuinely self-employed, and the Government recognise the massive contribution that contractors make to business and public services across the country. Our aim is simply to ensure that contractors who work through their own company pay the right tax.

However, evidence suggests that the rules have frequently been misapplied, meaning that contractors acting as employees were incorrectly paying less tax than if they had been employed in the usual manner. In April 2017, the Government introduced reforms for public sector organisations that take on contractors through their own companies. The reforms mean that public sector organisations are now responsible for deciding whether the contractor is acting as an employee and is therefore within the rules, as well as for ensuring that the right amount of tax is paid.

HMRC estimates that the reform has raised an additional £550 million in income tax and national insurance contributions over the first 12 months.

[Ged Killen]

Does the Minister know—I am not claiming that I do—how much of that £550 million is the result of the public sector incorrectly sweeping up contractors into the IR35 rules?

[John Glen]

I am not aware of any distribution analysis, but I will check with officials, and if I can give clarification on that, I will do so by letter.

Non-compliance in the private sector remains a persistent and growing problem that, if left unchecked, will cost the taxpayer as much as £1.3 billion by 2023-24, according to the Government’s estimates. In last year’s Budget, the Government announced that we will extend the reform of off-payroll working rules to all sectors, including the private and voluntary sectors. That will help to address the issue of non-compliance and to ensure there is a level playing field for the public sector and other sectors when hiring contractors.

The Government have listened to the views of individuals and businesses and have decided that the reform will apply only to medium and large organisations. It will not extend to the smallest 1.5 million businesses. In addition, it will take effect from April 2020, to give businesses and other organisations time to prepare. The Government are consulting on the detailed design of the planned reform, and we are listening carefully to the representations made. Our aim is to provide the individuals and organisations concerned with greater certainty about how the off-payroll working rules will operate from April 2020 in all sectors, including about the actions they can take to prepare for the changes.

Hon. Members talked about HMRC’s check employment status for tax—CEST—tool and raised some questions about its effectiveness. CEST was developed in consultation with stakeholders, including tax specialists and contractors, to assist individuals and public authorities in making the correct determinations. HMRC will stand by the result of CEST, provided the information entered is accurate and in line with HMRC guidance. It gives an answer in 85% of cases, and where it does not, more detailed guidance and support are available through a telephone number for individuals.

To support organisations in applying the rules, HMRC will continue to review and improve CEST. HMRC has already held user research sessions, and will continue to work with stakeholders over the coming months to ensure that the tool and the wider guidance suit the needs of all sectors, and to address specific points raised during the consultation. Enhancements will be tested and rolled out before the reforms are introduced in 2020. I asked officials for greater clarity on what that is likely to mean, and we are talking about improved guidance, better phraseology and improved language that gives greater certainty to individuals who make inquiries.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) mentioned the issue of blanket decisions in the example she gave. Members have expressed concern that businesses might take a blanket approach to applying the off-payroll working rules to contractors without looking at the facts of individual cases. Independent research suggests that has not generally been the case in the public sector, where the reform has been in place since April 2017. I cannot account for every case, but research was done to evaluate the issue because it was a legitimate area of concern. The vast majority of public bodies are making assessments on a case-by-case basis. I have looked into how that research was done— HMRC commissioned an external independent organisation to speak to central Government Departments, the NHS and local government departments to ascertain that.

Having listened to people’s concerns, we included proposals in our recently published consultation to help to ensure that processes are put in place for individuals to resolve disputes with their engagers directly and in real time. The proposals would put a legal requirement on engagers to have a status disagreement process in place, and would require them to consider evidence provided by an individual contractor and review their status determinations accordingly. HMRC is committed to working with organisations to ensure they make the correct status determinations, and will publish detailed support and guidance to help organisations prepare well ahead of April 2020.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ged Killen]

I thank the Minister for his response and hon. Members for attending the debate. This is a very complicated issue, and it is not necessarily one that sets pulses racing. However, for the people affected, their livelihoods are at stake, so I am pleased that Members have had the opportunity to raise their constituents’ concerns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke about what is going on in the NHS, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) pointed out how many public services in rural communities are dealt with in this manner. We have not yet got this right in the public sector. That is the crucial point: if we cannot get it right in the public sector, these issues will only be amplified in the private sector. We have to consider that carefully.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said, people’s livelihoods and incomes are at risk because, for example, expenses will be treated as earnings. For a lot of small businesses, having expenses treated differently could be the difference between success and failure. Small decisions in this respect may have major impacts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned the CEST tool, which I touched on in my opening remarks. I am not comforted by what the Minister said about that tool, purely because I have experience of it in a previous life and I know just how inconclusive it can be.

[John Glen]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to engage further on that and discuss his concerns in detail. I am not paying lip service to the consultation; I want it to be effective, and I want the tool to be as effective as possible.

[Ged Killen]

I thank the Minister for that. I appreciate that we can have a constructive approach. I do not think any of us disagrees about the principles; this is about getting it right.

HMRC’s idea of working with people to assist them is different across the board. I point out gently to the Minister that it can be daunting for people to have HMRC assisting them, because it provides guidance but it is also the enforcer. People are therefore keen to get things right on their own, so we need a fair and transparent system that everyone can understand and use fairly. If we can get a tool that works, that is great, but let us make sure we have one before we come down too hard on people.

I did not hear the Minister confirm whether the changes will eventually be rolled out to small businesses in the private sector. I appreciate that he might not be in a position to answer that today. If the Government are considering that, I urge real caution. They have not suggested that yet, but, having come from a small business background, I can say that that would be a very difficult prospect.

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the roll-out being restricted to larger businesses, which the Minister referred to. The changes will inevitably also impact small businesses, which are contractors with areas of expertise. For example, a large bank such as Barclays might commission a software expert to come in and build a product or tool, and that expert might in turn employ staff to support that project. If we classify the person who runs that small business as an employee of the bank, how are they meant to pay their staff?

That is the fankle that this reform will result in. It will draw us into situations where thriving, dynamic businesses that are responsive to the needs of large businesses—small businesses that can, for example, plug into a large financial institution to deliver a bespoke project and detach again —are not able to function in that way because their people will be pulled in as payroll staff members. Does my hon. Friend agree that those will be some of the inevitable negative impacts for small businesses if the Government do not get their act together with these changes?

[Ged Killen]

I absolutely agree. Small businesses will be affected by these changes anyway. People will be operating in a two-tier system, because many will work for small businesses as well as for large businesses in the private sector, and different rules will apply in those situations. I am not saying that is an argument for equalisation, because I still think it would be difficult for small businesses to act as the judge of whether someone falls under the scheme.

I am not in any way opposed to the principle of preventing tax avoidance. We all want to ensure that we boost tax revenues as much as possible, but that must be done fairly and transparently, and we must not destroy flexible working in the economy or self-employed people and small businesses in the process.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered IR35 tax reforms.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is right that other banks have been complicit in abandoning our local communities. I do not know whether he is due to lose a branch in his constituency, but the vast majority of hon. Members here are. As constituency MPs we have the right to come here to challenge not only the UK Government but Santander, which is planning to abandon our communities. I think we are spot on to be tackling Santander.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. On the point he made about abandoning communities, there are two former bank branches currently lying empty in my constituency, and there is about to be a third. Does he not think that banks leaving high streets owe it to their customers to invest in the community again in some form, whether by helping to get a new tenant into the closed branches or by providing some other investment in return for the loyalty they have been shown?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to another constituency neighbour for making a powerful point. It is great that the hon. Gentleman is here, because, with the planned closure of the Santander branch in my constituency, people have been moved to the one in his. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) made was that, even if certain branches—such as the one in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—have been saved this time, that does not mean they will not be at risk in future, so I am glad he is here to make his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate; we can see from the number of Members present the powerful cross-party consensus on the impact of bank branch closures on our local communities.

The most recent closures in my constituency and across the UK continue a worrying trend of declining public services. In Angus, 2015 saw the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland in Brechin, 2016 saw the Edzell Bank of Scotland branch close and in 2017 it was TSB in Kirriemuir. In 2018, RBS in Montrose and the Bank of Scotland in Kirriemuir closed, and it has now been announced that there will be two further Santander closures by the end of the year.

From 2015 to 2019, my local authority saw a total of 12 bank branches close. Looking at the wider picture, from 2010 to 2018 the country as a whole saw a 35% decline in bank branches, but Scotland was above that national average, at 38%. Angus now has one Santander branch in the constituency catering for a population of 100,000 people, although obviously not all of them are its customers.

I was disappointed, as the local Member, to hear about the closures in my constituency through a local news outlet, as opposed to from the Santander public affairs team; I believe Members of the Scottish Parliament heard through that route. I got a letter through a few days afterwards. I have not been given the opportunity to meet Santander until a few weeks from now. I am very disappointed by the way in which it has treated this serious issue.

The closures have an important impact on communities across the UK, with rural communities affected slightly differently. Both customers and staff find themselves in incredibly difficult situations, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East pointed out. Of course, the solution to all this is digitisation, but that does not help everyone. I was quite surprised when I went to bank a cheque in my local branch the other day and was told that I did not need to do that in the branch because it can be done via phone. Even at 29, I was surprised by the level of technology that some banks have pushed forward. However, those options are not available to all.

People in rural communities increasingly feel that they are being penalised because of where they choose to stay, whether by bank closures or through other services being taken away from them. These bank branches are in the heart of communities and they cannot simply be replaced by the cited alternatives.

Let us look at the digitisation offering. In an area such as Angus, there is not fantastic mobile coverage or broadband across the whole constituency. In fact, my constituency was ranked 612 out of the 650 constituencies in the UK—one of the worst—for the roll-out of superfast broadband. People simply do not have access to it, so although yes, more people are using the internet for their personal needs—the figure went up from 63% to 83% between 2007 and 2016—that provision is not available to all. As much as banks are keen to highlight the digital offering, they have to recognise that that cannot be used by everyone. We also have problems with mobile coverage. I know that it can be suggested that people phone the bank on a landline to raise their issues, but between 2012 and 2017 landline minutes declined by about 50% because people are using their mobiles. But in Angus, we still have many notspots, where people simply cannot get through.

The other alternative that hon. Members have mentioned is the use of post offices. As much as I welcome Santander’s provision to help the more vulnerable to understand how they can access post office services, Santander will not be able to do that with them every day. There are post offices in the towns where my closures are, in Brechin and Forfar, and I have been assured that they will be able to deal with all Santander customers wanting to deposit and withdraw cash, to pay in cheques and to check bank balances, but what if they need to print a statement or transfer money to another person’s account? What if they have questions about their mortgage? Those are all issues that people need to deal with day to day. Santander needs to look into those specific issues and how it would expect people without connectivity and without a post office nearby to be able to carry out those tasks.

[Ged Killen]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about the things that people need to do in a bank branch. I recently met Bank of Scotland representatives in my constituency and they spoke at great length about how wonderful the banking protocol was and how they had used it to stop transactions by vulnerable customers who had been sent along there by rogue salesmen or whoever to lift money out of the bank. They were able to spot that because they knew the customers; they had a relationship with them. Shortly thereafter, the Bank of Scotland announced that it was closing a branch nearby. How can the provisions of the banking protocol possibly be being met if everything is done online?

[Kirstene Hair]

The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. Many people want face-to-face interaction. For some people, the person they speak to when they go to the bank might be the only person they speak to all day, so it helps with combating loneliness, which we all know is so important. The hon. Gentleman makes the very valuable point that these staff get to know people; they create a relationship with their customers and look out for them on a personal basis.

As for the Post Office offering, one in three rural post offices closed between 2000 and 2009, and that decline has continued. We have to understand that post offices cannot always and will not always be able to accommodate all those who want to use them. It just seems to me that this is such a short-term approach, because if we have no post offices, if we have poor broadband and if we do not have mobile coverage, the digitisation method and post offices do not support all customers but support only a proportion of them. It is really important that Santander tries to explain to customers who do not have those points of access how it will still be a banking provider that those customers would want to deal with.

Protecting our high streets is also incredibly important. My high streets across Angus and in constituencies across the country are struggling very much. Post offices and banks are central to our high streets. They ensure that we have continued footfall day after day. When these sites are lost, the potential for these areas is hampered. Let us take the town of Kirriemuir in my constituency as an example. Kirriemuir was nominated in the Great British High Street Awards 2018; in my eyes, it was robbed, because it did not win. The area has a fantastic variety of high-quality local businesses that support numerous initiatives, for local residents and benefit the community. I am thinking of the efforts of the Kirriemuir and Local Business Association and Kirrie Connections. That is a high street shop, but in fact it is a dementia hub, which I visited only last week. People go there to spend time with those who are going through similar experiences to them.

I had the pleasure of being there when the judges were in Kirriemuir and looking round the town, which has so much pride in its offering. But now, it has lost its last bank. It will lose its ATMs. Businesses are forced to react because, as hon. Members have said, where will customers get their cash? Will investors be put off from coming to the town? Where will local businesses deposit their takings? When I was going round as part of small business Saturday, businesses raised with me time and again the fact that there are more card transactions because less cash is available and the fee on those card transactions is absolutely hammering them at a time when things are very difficult on our high streets. In addition, what of those constituents who want to use only cash? I understand that elderly people do not want a bank card or credit card; they want to pay only with cash. Why should we suggest that they should not be able to do so, if a bank and ATM are removed?

At a time when we should be doing everything for our high streets, we should be encouraging more footfall and not increasing the pressures, difficulties and uncertainty. One suggestion has been put forward time and again by my constituents: why cannot banks operate out of one building? Why can we not have a banking hub whereby all banks are located in one building? That means we keep a set of premises going, we keep choice for constituents and they do not have to travel as far as they might have to if a bank closed down.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many of my constituents, who voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, I felt devastated on the morning of 24 June 2016. It was the sheer magnitude and permanence of the decision, and the feeling that, as a nation, we were committing an act of self-harm that would leave us socially and financially worse off for the foreseeable future.

Like many of my constituents, I also felt a deep sadness about what we stand to lose, not just economically but the fact that the outcome of the referendum felt like part of our identity was being taken away. That is why I shudder when I see the Prime Minister celebrating, talking about people jumping the queue and tweeting in a style more suited to the current President of the United States, saying that we will be

“putting an end to the free movement of people once and for all.”

There is nothing to celebrate about leaving the European Union, and putting an end to the free movement of people is a step backward, not a step forward.

Let us not forget that it goes both ways. I am proud to call myself a European, but the next generation will not have the same freedom we had to live, work and study across the EU. For them the world will become smaller, which is certainly not something to celebrate. Just like on the other big questions, this withdrawal agreement tells us little about the impact of the decision to end free movement. What will it mean for the Scottish economy? That is a fundamental concern for many businesses in Scotland that rely on recruiting EU nationals to meet demands in the labour market. The onshore fishing sector, for example, is 70% dependent on an EEA workforce and is already having difficulty filling some roles, such as fish filleting.

I accept that there were concerns about free movement during and prior to the referendum, but the reality is that whatever new trade deals we manage to secure in future will have to include some element of workforce mobility. So the debate on migration is not going away, and the Government will have to do what they should have done all along: tackle the myths about immigration, and clearly set out what we gain as a nation and a society from people choosing to come here to live, work, study and contribute. Years of failing to do that, along with years of the Government blaming Europe for the bad while claiming credit for good, have played a large part in taking us to where we are today.

And where is that? The Prime Minister is right about one thing: given her red lines, this is the only deal that was possible. She boxed herself into a corner in an attempt to unify that side of the House when she should have been listening to concerned voices across this House. She has completely failed to take Parliament with her through this process, so we are now in the ludicrous situation where the Government are reassuring people that we are not going to be poorer than we are today; we are simply going to be poorer than we otherwise should be tomorrow. No one voted for that. She travels across the country expecting people to pat her on the back for agreeing to this, while at the same time denying them any say in the matter.

None of what we know now was on the ballot paper in 2016. The only time the public have been able to express an opinion on any of this since the referendum was when they considered the Conservative party’s manifesto in June 2017 and took away the Conservatives’ majority. There is no easy way out of the situation we are now in. I will always welcome an early general election, but while Parliament is in deadlock, with seemingly no majority for any option, it seems to me that the only democratic option left is to have a people’s vote. This deal is not a good deal for my constituents and I could never support it.

ATM Closures

Ged Killen Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of ATM closures on towns, high streets and rural communities.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have been raising the closure of ATMs and its impact on our towns, high streets and rural communities for some time. The issue is more pressing than ever. In November 2017, LINK, the ATM membership body that sets the funding for free-to-use ATMs, began consulting on proposed cuts to the funding mechanism known as the interchange rate fee—a fee paid to the ATM operator, by the bank or company that issues a consumer’s bank card, when cash is withdrawn. Prior to LINK’s reductions, that fee was 25p. In its consultation, LINK proposed reducing the fee to 20p through four rounds of cuts beginning on 1 July this year and ending in January 2021, although the third cut was cancelled and the fourth has been put under review.

From the beginning, LINK accepted that those changes would lead to ATM closures. In its analysis and consultation documents, it stated that it expected a decline of between 1% and 11% in free-to-use ATMs, but that it was confident that there would be a reduction only in areas with a high concentration of free-to-use ATMs, such as cities. However, the number of closures has been far higher —approximately 250 per month—since LINK announced its consultation. Operators such as NoteMachine and Cardtronics say they expect to lose thousands of machines each, and new installations have been put on hold.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems is that the machine operators—Cardtronics and so on—do not have to inform the LINK network before closing a machine, and that the cost of replacing a machine is prohibitive?

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. If an ATM is removed, it costs between £7,000 and £10,000 to reinstall. That high capital investment means that, once closed, an ATM is difficult to replace, due to concerns that the investment may not pay off.

LINK sought to reassure the Payment Systems Regulator that the spread of free-to-use ATMs would not be damaged, because it would use its financial inclusion programme to protect ATMs in areas where there was not another free-to-use machine within 1 km. However, although it is well-intentioned and well funded, that programme relies on communities or operators reporting vulnerable ATMs to LINK and nominating them for extra funding, which, as my hon. Friend alluded to, they do not have to do.

The problem is that the existence of the financial inclusion programme is not well communicated, and there is concern that take-up has been poor. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the process for accessing the programme is not well known or straightforward, meaning that communities, operators and councils are often delayed in applying for funding.

I spoke recently to Tesco about its network of more than 4,000 ATMs. As I am sure Members know, many of those ATMs are in groups of two or three outside stores. Tesco told me that in some cases, those two ATMs are the last two in the town, but neither falls under LINK’s financial inclusion programme because both are right beside another free-to-use ATM.

As a consequence of the poor deployment of the financial inclusion programme, more than 100 ATMs with “protected” status have closed. We see examples of the programme failing in Scotland. Just outside Edinburgh, in the EH18 postcode, the nearest free-to-use machine is now 1.3 km away. In the PH24 postcode in the Cairngorms, the nearest machine is 6.6 km away. In TD10 in the Scottish Borders, some consumers must travel 10.9 km to withdraw their cash without charge.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I am extremely glad that the hon. Gentleman is making an issue of the distance between ATMs. My constituency is vast and remote, and we have a thin scattering of ATMs. There is a threat of closure. I have a map here. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the distance between some of those ATMs is more than 10 km. If any one of them closed, that would be severely detrimental to my constituency.

[Ged Killen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He came along to an event I held in conjunction with Which? where that information was available to Members from across the House. Many Members were surprised to learn just how far apart ATMs are in their constituencies, and how vulnerable each of those areas would be if something happened to one of those machines.

The 1 km rule just is not working. Even if it were, things can go wrong quickly when one of the last remaining machines develops a fault or runs out of cash. I stopped off in Ballantrae in South Ayrshire over the summer recess, which seems a long time ago now. When I went to use the ATM, I discovered it was out of service. There is a post office counter in the local shop—we would need an entirely separate debate to talk about the pressure post offices are under to try to meet the gap in services created by the banks—but when I went into the shop to inquire, I discovered that the next-nearest ATM is more than 20 km away, or almost 13 miles in old money.

The other issue is that it is difficult to take account of local circumstances in applying the 1 km rule. In Cambuslang in my constituency, both free-to-use ATMs at either end of the main street are—excluding the other—within 1 km of another ATM, but those alternative ATMs would be not just inconvenient but very difficult to get to for anyone who experiences mobility issues. The closure of either ATM on the main street would have a massive impact on the small businesses in that area, which are already really feeling the pressure.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. Does he agree that in coastal towns—particularly in my constituency but in others, too—we sometimes see the dilution of ATMs? A filling station might open with an accompanying shop and ATM, but the ATMs in the town centre might close, thereby exacerbating the problems we have with reinvigorating our town centres.

[Ged Killen]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes an excellent point about the existing pressure on our high streets. Removing ATMs and other services does not help that pressure one bit.

LINK has now been given a specific direction by the PSR to review its financial inclusion programme, due to its failure to protect the spread of free-to-use ATMs. However, I have little confidence in the regulation of the sector. LINK’s changes to ATM funding were the PSR’s first major regulatory hurdle. In my view and that of many stakeholders, it fell at that hurdle. Common themes related to the reporting of issues and access to the financial inclusion programme have been reported by those involved in the industry pretty much since day one. I sat across from the PSR and explained the concerns I had heard about the closure of free-to-use ATMs and about their operators, and from the many people who are against the cut to LINK’s interchange fee, and I was met with silence. On every occasion when concerns were raised, the PSR failed to act. Only latterly has it taken action.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate. My very rural constituency is similarly affected. When I met the PSR, I found its attitude was, “Wait and see whether there are any problems, and then we might think about acting.” Does he agree that that is not the correct attitude for a regulator to take when it has such a weight of evidence before it that there will be problems?

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I met the PSR, it seemed wholly satisfied with listening to what LINK, rather than everyone else involved in the industry, had to say about the issue. That was surprising and disappointing.

The closure of free-to-use ATMs highlights the significant problem we have with the way access to cash is managed in the UK. There seems to be no effective oversight of the issue, and responsibility sits across numerous Departments, regulators and private companies. We need a regulator to have the powers to take a rounded view and implement effective measures that will ensure access to cash is protected. It seems likely that the PSR either does not have the power it needs or has not utilised fully and effectively the abilities it has. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

We are in a transition towards a cashless society, but we are not there yet. We need to be careful about how the transition is managed. Most importantly, we have to think about the impact on people who still rely on cash. Access to cash remains an important part of many of our constituents’ lives. Research from Which? has highlighted the fact that four in five people said that access to the free-to-use network was important in their daily lives and in paying for goods and services. Removing free access to cash would leave one in 10 people struggling to make payments, and would shut many consumers out of local shops and services.

We also need to think about what happens when the technology fails or in the case of hacking. This year the Visa payment system crashed and there were major online banking issues for TSB customers, many of whom of course did not have a local branch to visit as an alternative. The experience of other countries further along the journey towards a cash-free society, such as Sweden, where there has been a huge rise in the number of places that simply will not accept cash, is that there are now serious concerns about the lack of cash in the economy, so that the Government are looking at ways of addressing that retrospectively.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another challenge is the fact that in many communities there simply is not access to digital platforms—so that 25% of my constituents have not accessed the internet in the past six months? Moving to contactless payments or online banking is not an option available to them.

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is right. My constituency is neither rural nor a city; there are new-build towns that are in between, with surprisingly poor access to broadband in some places. We are asking people to use those services instead of visiting a local branch. That is not always practical—not least for those who are perhaps not as tech-savvy as others.

It is not just a matter of ATMs. The whole infrastructure that supports access to cash will be at risk if we move towards a cashless society too quickly. Without intervention from the Government it will be the elderly, the least well-off, rural communities, struggling high streets and small businesses that will pay the price. We see that happening in other countries that have made the transition too quickly. That is the driving force behind my private Member’s Bill to ban ATM charges and protect access to cash, the Banking (Cash Machine Charges and Financial Inclusion) Bill. In principle I do not believe people should have to pay for access to their own money. Long gone are the days when people’s employers handed them a pay packet at the end of the week, and the banks would not much like it if we all decided to keep our cash under the mattress. We have little choice but to keep our money in banks, and that money generates profit for banks, so we should not be paying to get access to it.

As LINK chips away at the funding formula for ATMs and more and more people use contactless and digital payment methods, there will be far fewer ATMs and more of the ones that are left will charge us for the privilege of withdrawing our cash. I do not want to stand in the way of progress towards a cash-free society, but I do want to shift the burden of that transition away from consumers and on to banks, who after all are the long-term beneficiaries of a cash-free society. We will never reap the rewards of those savings when they come, so let us have them now by requiring the banks to continue providing free access to cash where there is still a demand for it.

I was glad that the Labour party adopted the aims of my private Member’s Bill. For me, and for the Labour Front Bench, the rejuvenation of the high street is not just about helping small businesses; it is a social issue as well. I have noted that there is a growing cross-party consensus on the issue. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman)—he is not here for the debate, but I have notified him that I shall be mentioning him—has a private Member’s Bill on ATMs, the Minimum Service Obligation (High Street Cashpoints) Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who is here today and who, with his private Member’s Bill, the Banking and Post Office Services (Rural Areas and Small Communities) Bill, has highlighted the responsibilities that banks have to the consumers who bailed them out during the financial crisis. In addition to what is being done by Members of this House, a range of organisations have raised the same concerns. They include Which?, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of Convenience Stores.

I recently met the chair of the independent access to cash review, and I know that the review is considering in detail some of the issues I have touched on in the debate, so I look forward to seeing what comes out of that. However, in the context of bank branch closures up and down the country, and with high streets and rural communities facing ever greater challenges, the Government must take a serious look at the issue now. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what I have said.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 11 o’clock, and five Members want to catch my eye. We have about 40 minutes of Back-Bench time, so if Members speak for more than eight minutes they will deprive someone else; please be courteous to each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ged Killen]

I thank hon. Members for taking part in this debate; I was encouraged to see so many people first thing on what promises to be a very long day indeed.

I also thank the Minister for his response. Unfortunately, for some of it I felt like I was hearing the LINK briefing that I have heard a thousand times being repeated back at me, but there were some interesting things in there that I agreed with. I was encouraged to hear him say that the authorities were investing in cyber security, but I suggest to him that the people who are seeking to undermine our security are also invested in that endeavour.

As we witness the rise of digital technology, which the Minister mentioned, we have to consider the experience of other countries, such as Sweden, that are now retrospectively looking at Government intervention. We have a chance in this country to get ahead of that by considering intervention now.

I agree with the Minister when he says that this issue is about consumer choice; he is right about that. However, having listened to the concerns of Members here today, he will understand that that choice is being taken away from some people, due to the lack of availability of free cash. He can quote some favourable statistics showing that the situation is better than we might have suggested, but on the ground the picture is very different for the communities that we represent.

We all recognised what the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said about going to other ATM machines if he finds one that is charging a fee. I am exactly the same. Unfortunately, as he said, not everyone has the ability to go to another ATM.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about business rates, which must be looked at. I have heard these concerns expressed many times by shop owners in particular. They are concerned not just because ATM machines attract business rates; as I understand it, an ATM machine in a store actually increases the rateable value of that store overall, which brings additional costs for that business. We need ATMs to be there if there are no bank branches offering ATM provision.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that cash transactions were still in high use. From memory, when I spoke to Tesco it told me that over 60% of its transactions in store are still cash, and that there is a withdrawal from one of its ATM machines every 10 seconds. So, it is simply not right to say that cash is on the way out yet. As I have said, we are in a transition towards a cashless society, but we are not there yet and we have to get that transition right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) said that services such as ATM provision were a lifeline for our communities, and spoke about the percentage of someone’s income that they could pay out in charges if they withdrew £10 from an ATM machine and were charged. Of course, if that person has only £10 in the bank, they will be unable to withdraw that from one of these ATM machines that charge.

I conclude by giving my private Member’s Bill one final plug. I am pleased to report that the inventor of the ATM machine and the PIN code, James Goodfellow, is alive and well in Scotland. Mr Goodfellow supports my private Member’s Bill. So, if the Minister is unwilling to take my word for how important this issue is, perhaps he will consider taking the word of the inventor of the ATM machine.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of ATM closures on towns, high streets and rural communities.

Draft EEA Passport Rights (amendment, Etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Ged Killen Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 General Committees

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, to consider what is, in the Minister’s words, one of the most significant pieces of secondary legislation he has known.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that given that, in the Minister’s own words, there is nothing of comparable significance to this statutory instrument, it is extraordinary that no Scottish National party Member is here to stand up for Scotland’s financial sector?

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that we managed to contrive that intervention to put on the record that there is no one here from the third party of this House. Under the normal procedures of a Committee of such significance, it gets the right to respond, but has decided to pass up that opportunity. Given what the Minister said about the significance of the statutory instrument, there perhaps should be someone from that party here.

That does not take away from the fact that the statutory instrument says everything we need to know about the Government’s stance on Brexit. They are having to put through a statutory instrument to ensure any EEA firm that does business in the UK will be able to continue to do so after we leave the European Union in the event of no deal. There is utterly nothing from the Government about what will happen in the event of no deal. With the Prime Minister being stabbed in the back and hanging from the noose—in the words of Conservative Back Benchers—it looks increasingly unlikely by the day that we will end up with anything other than no deal or something close to it. What will happen to UK financial services firms that operate in the European Union?

I intervened on the Minister to ask whether he would expand on the fact that the Treasury is doing a significant amount of work. It should be commended for that work, but the Minister was questioned at least a dozen times in the House this week about the impact on jobs and this country’s GDP of a no deal scenario, or indeed a Chequers scenario or a Canada plus plus plus scenario. He fundamentally refused to answer that question.

In my earlier intervention, I asked whether the Minister could tell us the impact on jobs in the financial services sector in the event of no deal, which is what the statutory instrument is about, and he said he would answer in his summing up. I suspect that, by the time he gets to his summing up, he will not have a figure from the Treasury analysis, either because he does not have one, or because it is one that the Government do not want people to hear.

I hope the Chancellor comes to the Dispatch Box on Monday with a copy of the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility and lays out the impact of staying in the European Union, a no deal scenario, which is what the statutory instrument is about, a Chequers scenario, a Canada plus plus plus scenario, an hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) scenario, and the former Foreign Secretary’s scenario. For our financial services sector, it is merely a couple of reporting quarters away. I hope the Chancellor lays out the impact on jobs of leaving the European Union under all those plans, and everything in between, even if the Government give us just a range.

The Conservative party can fight internally all it wishes about who should have the keys to No. 10 and No. 11 and who should be doing the Brexit negotiations, but my constituency of Edinburgh South relies on financial services. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs across Edinburgh and Scotland and the United Kingdom, billions of pounds in tax revenue to the Treasury every single year, and the underpinning of this country’s entire exporting system. Even if it were to come to pass, the Chequers plan, which looks as if it is just about as dead as the dodo, does not even mention the services sector. It is 80% of our economy, and it is not even mentioned in the Chequers plan.

Scottish Economy

Ged Killen Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the Scottish economy.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and to bring such an important and timely debate to the House. I am pleased to see so many colleagues here, although I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is the only Government Minister who could join us. I know the Government take a rather apathetic view of devolution these days—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Let the hon. Member continue.

[Ged Killen]

I must point out that this is a debate about the Scottish economy, so I am not sure whether the presence of the Minister, albeit welcome, is an indication of diary conflicts, or that we are all the same in the eyes of the UK Government. It would have been nice to see someone from the Scotland Office or perhaps a Treasury Minister here to answer the debate.

It has been 10 years since the financial crisis, and in an ideal world we would be looking back on the crisis from a renewed position of strength, with the fundamentals of our economy strong, and with optimism for the future. Sadly, that is not where we find ourselves. Following a decade of economic mismanagement of Scotland by the Scottish National party and Conservative Governments, Scotland’s economy has failed to recover to above pre-crisis levels in a number of areas. The fundamentals of the economy are structurally unsound, with built-in constraints on future growth, and we appear to be trapped between two economic futures: one a Tory hard Brexit, the other supercharged austerity under the SNP’s growth commission.

The Scottish people have lost a decade of economic growth. Under the projections of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, that lost decade threatens to turn into a generation. However, I remain optimistic, because there is a third way: a Labour vision for the economy—an economy driven by investment, not cuts, and a vision that has an optimistic outlook for the Scottish economy, rather than one of managed decline. Today, I will set out where the Scottish economy stands; the two visions before us as posed by the UK and Scottish Governments; and the third way offered by the Labour party.

Ten years on from the financial crisis, the Scottish economy is in a difficult position. Economic growth remains heavily stagnant. GDP growth in Scotland has averaged out at less than 1% per year since the financial crisis, while the rest of the UK has done only slightly better. Unfortunately, things are not expected to get much better, because the Scottish Fiscal Commission does not expect growth to rise above 1% until after at least 2023. If that is the case, Scotland’s economy will not just have been at a standstill for a decade, but will have remained in the freezer for a generation.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the consequence of this slow growth in our economy is that an estimated £1.7 billion projected to be raised in tax will not be raised at all, and that we will have a deficit in the revenue that is expected to fund the public services we all depend on?

[Ged Killen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. We have a serious issue with how we expect to finance public spending in Scotland, and I will come on to that later.

Unfortunately, the story is the same when we turn to productivity. While the productivity puzzle on these islands has been a problem for both Scotland and the rest of the UK, the most recent figures show that in Scotland the puzzle is even more complex, and while UK productivity has risen by 0.7%, trend productivity in Scotland is zero. On key indicators for growing our economy and making our workers more productive, the SNP Government have an even poorer track record than the UK Government. That means that the country is not reaching its full potential, and the average person’s wages are being squeezed more and more. In the real world, in terms of how far towards the end of the month people’s pay reaches, when it comes to buying food, paying bills and socialising, the average Scot is worse off now than they were 10 years ago and is doing worse than the UK average.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about take-home pay and how much workers have in their pay packets, but when the SNP and Scottish Parliament announced their “Nat Tax”, his Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament argued that it did not go high enough. They wanted to take greater taxes off the hard-working Scots. How can he complain about how much people are taking home in their pay packets, when he wants to increase tax and take more money out of those pay packets?

[Ged Killen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I know we have very different views on tax and spend, and I do not think we will resolve them here.

To add to all that, Scotland is more unequal than ever. The wealth disparity means that the average household would need to save every penny of their income for 43 years to enter the top 10% of wealthiest Scots. A failure to increase wages, build more houses or spread wealth means that the most significant factor in determining whether a person will own their own home or secure a top-tier job is not their skills and talents, but who their parents are and where they live. A Scotland where circumstances of birth will take people further than their skills and talents is not the kind of country we should aspire to be, but that is the situation we find ourselves in.

Despite those facts, the vision put forward by our governing parties is not for the radical transformation that is clearly needed. On one side, one of Scotland’s Governments supports a damaging Brexit policy that will cut the ties of Scotland and the rest of the UK to the EU’s internal markets and the customs union. The Fraser of Allander Institute has modelled that with each degree of separation from those two tenets of the EU, Scotland will be more and more damaged. Scotland faces being between 2% and 5% worse off in GDP terms as a result of this Tory Brexit, while in the worst of cases, under a no-deal Brexit, in which we default to World Trade Organisation rules, wage growth will go into reverse, the economy will shrink and, most worryingly, Scotland’s successful food and drinks exporting industry could suffer as much as a 26% reduction in trade.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the position of his party’s Front Benchers on Brexit is any different from that of the Conservative Government?

[Ged Killen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; he is obviously not paying very close attention in the Chamber. The UK Governments have very clear red lines drawn all over the place, and none of them seem to reach any kind of consensus. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman’s remarks are provoking comments, but please can those comments be kept to either interventions or speeches?

[Ged Killen]

Thank you, Mrs Main. The Labour party position is quite clearly putting jobs and the economy first. If the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) intends to contribute to this debate, perhaps he can explain why it is very important for Scotland’s economy to remain in the European Union but his party wants to take us out of the United Kingdom. That is something I would find difficult to square.

The UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Fraser of Allander Institute have all warned of serious damage to Scotland’s economy as the result of a no-deal Brexit. Worryingly, recently it has seemed that some members of the Conservative party believe that that is an acceptable outcome. In no circumstances should any public representative be recommending that that risk be taken in pursuit of gains that, in my view, are vastly outweighed by the negatives.

On the other side of the equation we have the SNP Government, who have produced a growth commission to set out how they want to see Scotland’s economy grow in the future. In 2015 and 2017, the SNP stood on a manifesto that claimed that it was anti-austerity. The publication of the growth commission and the endorsement of its policies by the First Minister should represent the day when the mask slipped and the SNP was shown to be the party of austerity that we know it to be.

In the growth commission, the Scottish Government propose reducing Scotland’s budget deficit through an approach that would see spending on public services and benefits fall by about 4% of GDP over a decade. Compare that with the policies of the Conservative UK Government, as set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The UK Government’s projections see spending on public services and benefits over a five-year period, from 2018-19 to 2022-23, falling by 0.9% of GDP. The plans set out by the SNP in the growth commission would mean the Scottish Government cutting public expenditure on public services and benefits close to five times faster than this Conservative UK Government.

In its model for the future of an independent Scottish economy, the SNP has given up on monetary policy as a tool for stimulating the economy. By not proposing a new currency and by setting public spending and borrowing targets that even George Osborne would have considered ambitious, the SNP has baked serious public spending cuts into its preferred future economic model. Relying on fiscal policy alone to reduce Government debt and budget deficits, they will have to introduce spending cuts, raise taxes or do a combination of both. That is the dictionary definition of austerity.

Those are the most optimistic of figures. The IFS says that, with an ageing population adding to the pressures on the health, social care and state pension budgets, keeping to the growth commission’s targets would likely require cuts to many public services, with the commission not taking the time to spell out exactly where the axe would fall and who would lose out as a consequence. Furthermore, the IFS also said what all know to be true:

“It is also inconsistent to claim that these plans do not amount to austerity but the UK government’s current policy does”,

particularly while the growth commission’s plans

“imply slightly slower real growth in spending than the UK Government is currently implementing.”

I am sure that the SNP will not cease to call itself the anti-austerity party, even after the growth commission’s publication. However, the facts speak for themselves. These are empty calls and stolen clothing. The growth commission is most disappointing because of its lack of ambition. The two Governments of Scotland have produced plans for the future of the Scottish economy that leave much to be desired, and it is therefore up to the Labour party to present a true alternative.

The Scottish economy has three core structural problems: stagnant GDP growth, low productivity and demographic challenges caused by a projected significant increase in the over-65 population and a shrinking in the relative size of the economically active population. Labour has a vision to address all three problems. The problems of growth and productivity cannot be separated; they are twin problems. The Scottish labour market is strong—we have a relatively low unemployment rate by European standards, and an exceptionally low youth unemployment rate.

However, while unemployment has decreased over the years, wages have stagnated and economic output has not matched the increase in the labour force that would usually be expected. That is because, while jobs have been created, they are predominantly low-skill, low-wage jobs that have not helped to accelerate growth; nor have they been productive enough to increase wages. By introducing a minimum wage of £10 per hour, we can reverse the trend of low wages and encourage investment to improve labour productivity. If we increase the minimum wage, companies will have to invest in technology and training to improve the output of their workforce to match the demands they are under. No longer will low-wage, gig economy jobs serve to undercut the advantages of investment.

[Neil Gray]

The hon. Gentleman talks about raising the minimum wage, which is a laudable aim for us all to strive for. However, we are talking about Scotland’s economy, and he will of course realise that this area of economic policy is reserved to the UK Government, so this is not in the gift of the Scottish Government to enforce.

[Ged Killen]

The hon. Gentleman will of course realise that we are in the UK Parliament. Scotland has two Governments, and I am talking about Labour’s vision for both. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Gray, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) has taken your intervention. Please do not carry on your conversation.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman support the devolution of employment law?

[Ged Killen]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell us in her remarks how her party intends to change employment law, if it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland suffers from under-investment. While the Scottish Government have produced many investment packages, they are often too small, too numerous and too unfocused to deliver the outcomes they are set up to achieve. Those are not my words but the conclusions of recent reports by the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee.

Under the current Scottish Government, we have had economic development plans governed by press release. Labour proposes real investment to correct the problems of stagnant labour productivity and GDP growth. We aim to stimulate investment more widely through a national plan that focuses long-term investment on local and national infrastructure, such as information, communication, services and production technologies, as well as in physical infrastructure, such as roads, buildings and town and city centres. That will not only correct the decade of under-investment that led to the productivity problem, but begin the vital future-proofing of the Scottish workforce against the challenges of automation and increasing digitalisation.

Furthermore, we plan to examine the possibility of public sector pension funds using their resources to establish a Scottish public provident fund, which could invest in local production and infrastructure, boost local supply chains and stimulate employment.

We will implement our industrial strategy and invest in Scotland’s economy. We will also encourage and incentivise firms in Scotland to raise the percentage of turnover invested in research and development. Scotland is only ninth in the UK in R&D spend per head, so such measures are sorely needed and will be vital in solving the productivity puzzle. Those kinds of investments will encourage the growth of new industries. An excellent example of that is CST Global in my constituency—a photonics manufacturer that I believe represents the future of jobs in Scotland.

CST Global has shown itself to be a significantly high-growth, high-skill business. It has sustained strong annual growth, with revenues increasing by 88% in a year to £6.7 million in 2017. It is a strong exporter, and the photonics industry is one of the UK’s most productive. On average, each employee in the sector contributes £62,000 to the economy in gross value per year—three times the UK average. These companies also have some of the highest export rates of any industry, exporting an average of 75% of their manufactured output.

Such companies are often city-based, and we would not typically expect them to be found in smaller towns, such as Blantyre in my constituency. However, CST Global has proven that that need not be the case; when conditions are right, those companies can not only do well but thrive in these places. CST Global is very welcome in Blantyre. Supporting such businesses is central to the investment-based economic model. If we want to see the future of the Scottish economy defined by high-skill, high-wage and high-tech jobs, we have to invest.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely interested in growing the Scottish economy, he should support the devolution of powers to set VAT and national insurance rates, and to collect fuel duties, capital gains tax, interest on dividends and export duties, as well as all the other powers that the Scottish Parliament does not possess and is therefore unable to use to grow our economy.

[Ged Killen]

It is nice to see that both the hon. Lady and her favourite pantomime villains have turned up to continue the set-to that we often see in the Chamber. I am here to make a speech on what I believe is right for the Scottish economy. She will clearly disagree on several areas, and she can set those out in her remarks. As always for SNP Members, independence is the answer, no matter the question. I am surprised to hear SNP Members now talk about devolution so much, given that they have always opposed it. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. This is becoming somewhat intolerable. No respect is being shown to the hon. Gentleman, who is trying to make his speech. This is not a conversation among Members; it is a debate, which will be held in the proper manner. I ask all colleagues to respect the hon. Members making speeches and to keep their remarks to themselves or to voice them in the proper manner—through interventions.

[Ged Killen]

Thank you, Mrs Main. While we invest in a productive workforce, we must also attract talent to fill those spaces. All of Scotland’s population growth from 2016 to 2041 will derive from inward migration, as deaths will outnumber births in each year. Brexit therefore presents a risk, as it could reduce inward migration from the EU. However, even without Brexit, population growth is too slow and lags behind that of other parts of the UK, both in terms of birth and death rates, and through inward migration. We can correct that by supporting a needs-based immigration system. It is simply unhelpful to focus on an abstract number, as the UK Government are doing—or are failing to do.

However, we must also build the communities that attract the best talent. That is why we have called on the Scottish and UK Governments to get on with the completion of the city deals projects. People move to cities and communities. The delivery of more than £1 billion of funding and the devolution of further powers will allow our cities and communities to make themselves attractive to international talent on their own terms, rather than having terms dictated by Holyrood or Westminster.

Overall, 83% of Scotland’s population—4.5 million people—live in areas covered by existing or planned city region deals. That is a huge amount of talent and aspiration to be unlocked, and we simply cannot wait any longer. However, those deals have been bogged down as both the Scottish and UK Governments cannot bring themselves together to settle the matter. We have seen in the wrangling over the devolution settlement that the SNP and Conservative party can lock themselves in disagreement if it is politically opportune to do so; dare I say that we have seen that today? However, the people of Scotland should not be punished because of the narrow interests of the two governing parties.

In conclusion, Scotland has lost a decade of economic progress under its two Governments. If nothing changes, this decade threatens to turn into a generation of stagnation. However, an opportunity exists to turn this around, and the pathway to growth is best fulfilled by an investment-based economic model.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I will try, Mrs Main. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for securing this spirited debate. Hon. Members have lots of ideas about the Scottish economy, which is always something to welcome.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of a decade of lost opportunity. It is no coincidence that that decade has also seen Tory austerity writ large and a financial crash caused by the previous Westminster Administration. We have had to put up with the consequences and do the best we can with one hand tied behind our back.

[Ged Killen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

My time is constrained, and there are a couple of hon. Members I want to mention, but I will try to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman if I can.

I would also take issue with anybody who says that the Scottish National party has a lack of ambition; we could not have more ambition for our country than to take control of all the financial levers to improve the conditions for our people. With the powers of independence, that is exactly what we would do.

Scotland’s economy is performing relatively well on many indicators. It is a country with many economic strengths: it is an attractive place to work, live and conduct business.

Future of ATMs

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted to rise to speak to an issue that I am tempted to say affects all constituencies throughout the country: the future of automated teller machines and their provision to our constituents.

By way of introduction, I should say that this debate was triggered by LINK—the body that co-ordinates most of the ATM network and sets the rules for ATM providers —which has proposed and confirmed changes to its interchange fees, following a rather flimsy four-week internal consultation with its bank and ATM-provider members. The core of the proposal is that LINK will reduce its interchange fees by 20% over a four-year period, from 25p to 20p per transaction. The first 5% reduction—from 25p to 23.75p—is set to take place on 1 July this year. Interchange fees will then fall by another 5% on 1 January next year, with a further 5% reduction in fees expected again in January 2020 and again in 2021.

Concerns have been expressed by Members from all parties and by organisations as diverse as Which? and the Federation of Small Businesses. More importantly, because they are key to the network, ATM machine providers—companies such as Cardtronics—have made significant representations to us. This issue is potentially so serious that the Treasury Committee has been hearing evidence on it. In a statement on 31 January, the Chair of that Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), said:

“Any significant reduction in free access to cash would be an unacceptable outcome. This will be the first major test for the Payment Systems Regulator. They must ensure that customers do not lose out as a result of LINK’s proposals.”

I shall return to the PSR in a moment or two.

LINK’s proposal comes against the backdrop of significant bank closures, an issue that is often seen through the prism of a rural telescope, but which also affects larger market towns, suburban areas and large city centres. The cri de coeur usually goes up from the banks, as they reduce their estate, of the need to use digital banking. That is an easy solution for very many people and indeed it is very popular—I use it myself—but in rural areas where broadband speed is not as fast as it needs to be and mobile telephone signals might not be strong enough to enable people to log on to banking services, our banks have been very much at the heart of communities, socially and commercially. With their closures, access to cash through ATMs becomes even more pivotal. There was the flimsy consultation by LINK of its members, who clearly have the whip hand, but there was precious little, if any, identifiable engagement with or consultation of consumers in our communities. I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe nothing came through to Members of Parliament suggesting what LINK might be doing.

Reliance on ATMs grows. I know that the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Minister, who I welcome to his place and with whom I have discussed this issue, believe that the use of cash is decreasing. I am sure that he will give us the up-to-date statistics on that, as there is a trend in that direction. The death of cash has long been predicted, but has never actually come about. It has declined by about 34% in the past decade or so, but there is still a need for cash. I am tempted to say that, disproportionately, the need is among our older people—65% of my constituents in North Dorset are over the age of 70—and those on low or fixed incomes who find managing their weekly budgets much easier via cash transactions than merely by contactless payments or by using some other form of card.

Access to the cash that ATMs dispense clearly provides for a social and financial inclusion agenda. You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is amazing when people turn up whom one vaguely knew at university. A friend of mine from university days—yes, I can remember that far back—happens to be the chief cashier at the Bank of England. Victoria Cleland is quoted in The Guardian—I was given this quote, as The Guardian is not the newspaper of choice necessarily in the Hoare household—saying that the predictions of the death of cash are premature and that

“cash is definitely here to stay.”

When the chief cashier herself says

“I personally don’t really use contactless”,

that perhaps says something about the over-reliance of some of our service providers on technology, as they neglect the fact that not all our constituents, including the chief cashier of the Bank of England, feel terribly comfortable using it.

I am very grateful for the submissions that I have received from the Association of Convenience Stores. It does not support the LINK decision. It represents 33,500 convenience stores, and in rural constituencies such as mine where the out-of-town shopping mall and the large superstore is not common, such stores provide not only a retail function but will often host an ATM as well.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I know that the turnout today reflects not the importance of the debate, but the weather. Does he share my concerns about the comments of the chief executive of LINK who went on record before Christmas in the Daily Telegraph, saying that cash machines will largely disappear, and completely disappear in rural areas? Is that not an odd comment from the chief executive of LINK, which is charged with a public service remit to protect cash?

[Simon Hoare]

It is not only odd; it is both perverse and totally contrary to the expectations of the regulator and the duties that LINK ascribes to itself. I will come in a moment to the role of the Government, particularly the Treasury, in this issue. There is a real danger of constituents being caught in a pincer movement between competing business and commercial interests. There are duties or expectations of the regulator, but it has no real teeth to deliver. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I hope to come to that in a moment or two.

The Association of Convenience Stores does not support LINK’s decision. It has raised a number of issues, including bank closures, saying that

“the withdrawal of ATMs has increased the role that ATM providers and convenience stores play in providing consumers with access to cash.”

Of course, ATMs hosted in convenience stores and other retail outlets also provide benefits to the high street and other shopping parades by providing access to cash to facilitate consumer spending. Wanting, quite properly, local money to be spent locally is one of the major arguments deployed by the Federation of Small Businesses with regard to its concerns.

LINK has suggested that retailers could fill the gaps in the ATM network through cashback services. Again, in theory it is probably right. However, the practice of a one or two-man shop—or, indeed, a one or two-woman shop—in an isolated rural setting holding enough cash not just to deal with transactions, but to hand money to people on a cashback basis totally neglects the impact of the insurance premiums that those retailers would have to incur, often in marginal retail businesses. That is not to mention the security concerns of staff working in those shops at a time when rural policing is not of a high visible profile. It seems a rather dangerous premise on which to base a strategy.

I am very grateful for the support of 41 colleagues from across the country and across this House who wrote to Hannah Nixon, the managing director of the Payment Systems Regulator, who has been both punctilious and courteous in her dealings with me. We outlined our concerns in our letter of 29 January, highlighting the potential disproportionate impact on rural areas, although we did not limit our concerns only to rural areas. Again, I thank Hannah Nixon for her promptness, as she replied on 31 January. Her response gave some comfort, but not enough.

I urge the Treasury Bench to think about these things. I appreciate and understand that we want a light touch when it comes to regulation, but a light touch does not mean contactless. A light touch does not mean that we just pull away and let things evolve as is seen fit. Indeed, a number of concerns have been expressed, particularly by the providers of the machines, in relation to what happened across the pond in the United States. LINK here has predicated its decision to reduce the interchange fee primarily—or certainly in great part—because of changes in the market by other providers, such as Visa. We always used to say that when the United States coughs, 20 years later we will probably get the cold. The race to the bottom in reducing overheads through the interchange fee in the United States has led to a significant reduction in the provision of ATMs and in access to cash, often for the poorest American citizens. Let us learn from that example. Let us be alert to it.

I return to the letter of 31 January from Ms Nixon. Two words cause me some concern. She tells me and the other MPs who signed the letter that the Payment Systems Regulator has made

“clear to LINK what we expect”

and that,

“Promoting the interests of users is one of our statutory objectives”.

I am tempted to say that promoting is good, but protecting—looking out for—would be better; and demanding and ensuring, rather than expecting, would give us more cause for comfort.

Sturminster Newton is a very pretty market town in my constituency that saw its last bank close last year. That has been sad. It has had a huge impact on residents and on businesses within the town. My very good friends Andrew Donaldson and Chris Spackman—excellent town councillors and diligent local public servants—have been trying to fill the gap that this has created. The town does have a couple of ATMs, but their capacity is small in terms of the volume of cash they can hold, and one of them has very poor reliability. They were just on the cusp, with Cardtronics, of delivering a new ATM for the town. We should bear it in mind that when Lloyds had its ATM, it was dispensing £180,000 per week, rising to about £200,000 when big events were going on, such as the annual cheese festival.

Councillor Spackman contacted Cardtronics and was put in touch with its EU corporate director. Very helpfully, it was going to come and deliver a new ATM, but that was pulled, citing

“recent proposed reductions to the Link transaction fees”

which

“had reduced the viability of our ATM making it uneconomic for them”—

that is, Cardtronics. He said that he

“doubted any other operator would be interested in installing an ATM in Sturminster Newton”

and that as a result

“there would be ‘cash deserts’ in rural areas”.

Sturminster Newton is quite a small town of about 4,500 people. However, the rural catchment—I declare an interest as it includes the town that my wife and I look to for service provision—has about 18,000 people. Therefore, 18,000 people in a sparsely populated rural area now have real difficulty in getting hold of cash.

I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions, and I am grateful for the answers that my hon. Friend the Minister has given. I drew particular comfort from a letter I received on 7 February from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in his capacity as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He says in the third paragraph:

“I know you have an interest in this issue. The Government has always aligned with MPs on the question of continued widespread free access to cash, and made it clear to LINK that while sustainability of the ATM network is important, it must not put this access at risk.”

So the Treasury Committee, consumer organisations such as Which? and the Association of Convenience Stores, very many Members of Parliament, Cardtronics as a representative of the ATM providers, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary are drawing together a coalition of interest and concern to ensure access to banking and access to cash through the ATM network. I have sat and listened to, and read, submissions from LINK, Cardtronics, and others. Earlier this week, there was a very useful event upstairs in one of the Committee Rooms where both organisations were able to make presentations, and information has been submitted by the regulator.

I ask the Government to accept this point: while the use of cash is on the decline, its death has been greatly exaggerated. Technology will not always fill the gap, and cash will always provide a very important mainstay in our economic and retail life. Against that backdrop, the regulator clearly has a remit, and LINK has an aspiration. The Minister represents Newark, a constituency that in its size and demographic is probably not that dissimilar from my own, and indeed from that of many other Members. I see that his Parliamentary Private Secretary is my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who I have no doubt has similar issues in his constituency.

I encourage the Minister not to take a laid-back approach to this. We must hold people to account and ensure that the regulator has the confidence to be as muscular as possible. The current trend that the regulator and LINK seem to have of retrospective review and analysis of how these things have panned out is not good enough and is not giving comfort to me, as the Member of Parliament for North Dorset, to many colleagues across the House and to our constituents that we are looking out for their interests and seeking to preserve their access to a robust and reliable ATM network.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)]

May I begin by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members a happy St David’s day? As the subject of today’s debate is cash and its availability, I wish the same to the staff of the Treasury’s Royal Mint in snowy Llantrisant today. I had the pleasure of visiting them last month for the appointment of the Royal Mint’s first ever female deputy master and chief, Anne Jessopp. Anne is the first woman to hold that post since the Mint was founded in 886 AD. It has taken just over 1,000 years, but a woman is now finally in charge at the Mint, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, a woman is the chief cashier at the Bank of England.

One of Anne Jessopp’s first tasks as deputy master of the Mint was to launch the 50p piece that the Mint has created for the 100th anniversary of female suffrage. Unfortunately, although those coins are available online at www.royalmint.com and can be purchased by visiting the Royal Mint, not many of them will enter circulation. That is because there is limited demand for new coinage. Therefore, the Mint, over the course of this year, is unlikely to require new 50ps. Therein lies part of the heart of today’s debate: the use of coinage and notes is in decline, and digitisation is transforming the way we use cash and spend money, as it is every other aspect of our lives.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The relatively few Members who were able to join us today due to the poor weather is no reflection of the importance of this issue to either the Government or Members of Parliament. First and foremost, I want to assure Members that the Government recognise the importance of widespread access to free cash, and we will do everything we can, with the industry, the regulators and LINK, to ensure that access is maintained.

I want to address three areas, which I hope will allay some of the concerns that my hon. Friend raised and speak to how important this is to the Government. The Treasury and I personally will be following this extremely closely as it develops in the months and years to come.

First, as my hon. Friend laid out well, the increasing digitisation that we are experiencing across society is having a major impact on cash. It has been important already, and I think its impact will be quite profound in years to come. That plays into a wider debate that the Treasury is interested in and in which all parts of Government have to engage, which is how we can embrace the new and ensure that the United Kingdom makes the most of new technology and does not shy away from it. We cannot stop the world and get off it, but we have to protect the vulnerable in society and ensure that the benefits of new technology work for all people in all parts of the United Kingdom, whether in great cities such as London or in rural areas such as Dorset, Nottinghamshire, Cornwall and the others represented here today.

The use of cash has fallen from 62% of all payment volumes in 2006 to 40% in 2016, the last year for which we have reliable figures, and it is predicted that, by 2026, it will make up just 21% of all our payments. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, however, claims that we will move any time soon to a completely cashless society are off the mark. The use of cash—both coinage and notes—will continue to decline significantly in the years ahead, but it seems unlikely that any of us will live in a country without any form of cash. That poses an important challenge to Government on how we can manage this period of transition in a way that works for everyone.

Cash remains extremely important in the day-to-day lives of UK consumers and businesses. It is still the form of payment that the UK public reach for the most, and 5% of the adult population rely either entirely or almost entirely on cash to make all their day-to-day payments. Many of them, of course, are the most vulnerable, the most financially excluded and the most elderly members of society.

To provide free access to cash, the UK has one of the most extensive free-to-use ATM networks in the world. Compared with our major international competitors, including the United States, our network is extensive and generally free, and those are important things that we want to continue. There are more ATMs in the UK than ever before, about 54,000 of which are free to use, which represents an increase of 50% in the past decade alone.

[Ged Killen]

Is not the Minister concerned that the LINK decision on the interchange fee might reverse free access to cash? The problem is that LINK is relying on the ATM operators themselves to tell it when cash machines are no longer financially viable. Is it not the case that many machines may already have closed after the event?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which I hope I will be able to answer over the course of my speech. One of the motivations for LINK and the industry’s actions is to reduce modestly the number of ATMs in those areas with the greatest density, including cities such as London, but their pledge to the Government and to consumers, which I will go on to talk about, is that that will not be to the detriment of those in rural areas, market towns or harder-to-serve areas, which are not exclusively rural but could be areas of greater deprivation, even in cities such as London. We have had a fairly strong promise from LINK and from the regulator that there will be no detriment to rural areas. I will come on in a moment to how that will be enforced in practice.

We all recognise that there is a decline in the use of cash, which is making it harder to maintain our current level of free access to cash. That is the challenge that the changes hope to address. I appreciate that we have to view the issue through the lens of bank branch closures, which affects my constituents and those of most Members across the House. The Government, the financial services industry and the regulator therefore have to act to ensure that the needs of the consumer continue to be met. My comments, on behalf of the Government, represent consumers, not the regulator or LINK. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is absolutely right that we in this House represent the consumers, and their interests must be our primary concern.

Secondly, I wish to address exactly how we do that, which brings me to the particular role played to date by the Payment Systems Regulator and the role it will play in the future, if it lives up to the Government’s expectations. In November, LINK—the main payment scheme behind the UK’s ATM network—launched a consultation on reducing interchange fees by 20%. As I have said, that was designed to reduce the duplication of cash machines in city centres while protecting the more isolated machines. That is the organisation’s stated objective, to which we will hold it to account. At the time, the Government and many Members of this House were clear that any changes must not have a harmful impact on consumers. If machines are lost in cities, the impact should be generally imperceptible, and if they are lost in rural and harder-to-serve areas, they should be replaced, wherever possible.

Community Bank Closures

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, although I think many others will be astonished that he has had a bank account for that long. There is a genuine issue about the responsibility of community banking. When I got my first paying-in book, there were 20,585 branches across the country, but by 2012 that figure had dropped to just 8,837. In the past three years alone, we have seen a further 1,500 branches close, and that does not include the announcement of further closures made in the past three months.

The hole that these closures leave behind goes far beyond an empty shop front. For the elderly or disabled, a 3 mile journey to the nearest branch is more than inconvenience. In my constituency, Burslem, Kidsgrove and Tunstall are all facing the loss of well-used local bank branches and the impact on local residents and local businesses will be severe. In Burslem, we are currently facing the prospect of losing our very last bank branch, a local Lloyds. Burslem is the mother town of the Potteries, as I am sure the whole House is aware. It is home to Burslem School of Art and the Wedgwood Institute, to Port Vale football club and the outstanding Titanic brewery. Yet if these plans go ahead, there will no longer be a single solitary bank. What message does that send to a community that is doing everything it can to support local businesses and improve our town centre? When did community banking become a phrase devoid of meaning?

In Kidsgrove and Tunstall, Co-op customers are faced with the prospect of losing their local branches—the last remaining Co-op banks in my constituency. As a Tunstall resident and a customer myself, I know how popular the branches are and the impact that their disappearance will have. Walk into any one of these branches at virtually any time of day and people are queueing. They are used by hundreds of residents as well as local businesses.

Petitions against the closure have already attracted thousands of signatures, and residents have contacted me about what the closures will mean for them. I must thank Councillor Kyle Robinson for leading the campaign in Kidsgrove, collecting more than 1,200 signatures so far, as well as Tom Simpson, Lucy Kelly and local traders in Tunstall and Tunstall market for their incredible efforts, as well as the wonderful June Cartwright for co-ordination of the Our Burslem campaign.

The closures will have an immediate effect and impact on people’s lives. I have heard from elderly constituents who use the Tunstall Co-op branch and will be forced instead to travel 3 miles via unreliable public transport to a city centre with no public conveniences. For people in their 70s and 80s, or those with a disability, this is more than an inconvenience—it is a genuine struggle.

That was brought home to me by a story from a constituent whose parents have used the branch for many years. They are not technologically savvy— a weakness I, and I am sure others across the House, share—and they find it difficult to use an ATM or to pay for things in shops using their debit cards. If the House will humour me for just a moment, I want to quote what my constituent had to say about this matter:

“My parents are 81 and 83 years old and have used the Co-op bank in Tunstall for many years. The staff know my parents very well. They are exceptionally helpful, supportive, patient and ensure that they understand everything that they need to. Knowing that my parents have this level of support when I’m unable to be there every day, provides me with a great deal of reassurance, and I’m extremely grateful for this.”

I am sure that we all know people who benefit from this level of personal service and for whom the faceless and bewildering world of online banking simply will not work. In fact, in my great city too many of my constituents do not even have access to the internet. In the past three months, the Office for National Statistics suggests, up to 51,000 people, or one in four, aged over 16 in Stoke-on-Trent have not accessed the internet. One in four. For the record, that is more than double the national average, which makes talk of internet banking as the panacea for this crisis nonsense for too many people.

For businesses too, the closures present a challenge. For those who trade primarily in cash it is neither safe nor practical to expect staff to travel halfway across the city to deposit the day’s takings. And for small businesses with a limited number of employees, the time that this will take out of their day is a real hindrance. One of the defences often given in advance of such closures is that nearby ATMs will continue to be available, yet hundreds of them are at risk of being closed down thanks to the proposed overhaul of the LINK network. What is more, the services provided by external ATMs are incredibly limited, even compared only with the automated services available in bank branches.

The Post Office provides a valuable service, and in 3,000 locations—soon to include Burslem—it is the last banking retailer in town. But its ongoing restructuring process has seen too many branches close in recent years and we do not know what the future holds. Of course, although the Post Office can support customers looking to withdraw or deposit cash, it cannot provide the same range of services and advice as a bank branch.

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people are not necessarily aware of the services available in post offices? If they are, they do not always want to do their banking in, for example, a local shop—where a lot of post offices are now based—because it might be busy.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In fact, one of my concerns is that no assessment is made of whether local post offices have the capacity to deal with these issues when a bank in a community closes, and there is no communication with those post offices.

Britain has often been described as a nation of shopkeepers, so what does it say about us if we are unable to maintain the national banking infrastructure that our small traders need? There is a safety aspect to these closures as well. Should the final Lloyds branch in Burslem close, the only remaining ATMs will be inside shops. There will be no external ATMs available in the town and nowhere to withdraw cash after closing time. If I were to go for a drink in Burslem one evening, and as the vice chair of the all-party beer group, it would be impolite not to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I am sure that we all heed your words, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your consideration this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing the debate.

I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), but I am afraid that he seemed to be talking himself into a bank closure. Of course, this debate is about banking services, but I hope that we can also focus on the need to think creatively about the sort of sustainable bank—a community hub—that is necessary. This is perhaps not necessary in our cities, where we can walk down the street and pass six banks in half a kilometre, but it is necessary for our small towns and semi-rural communities around the United Kingdom. For them, it is the bank’s presence in a new sustainable form that we are fighting for and championing today.

In August 2017, Reuters reported that bank branches across Britain had closed at a rate of 300 per year since 1989. The Daily Mail reported in December 2017 that over 1,000 branches had closed in 2015 and 2016, and a record 802 branches closed in 2017. The accelerating pace of closures appears relentless. In my constituency, the town of Tickhill lost its last bank in 2015. In 2016, the town of Thorne lost its HSBC branch. Then, in November 2017, RBS served notice that the town of Thorne will also lose its NatWest branch, and the town of Bawtry is to lose its last bank branch, also a NatWest.

The previous Government’s response to this relentless wave of bank closures was to announce an access tobanking protocol in March 2015. It is now clear that the protocol was not what it seemed. It laid out a timetable for consultation about impact and the provision of alternative banking, but no—I repeat, no—mechanism to stop a branch closing. So the process for closure has been determined, but a mechanism to halt a closure is non-existent. Communities have no more chance of stopping the closure than they did in 2015. The Government have done, and are doing, nothing to change this. “It is a private matter; it is a commercial matter”, we have been told on several occasions during Prime Minister’s questions in recent times. The Government decline to collect statistics on closures or on how many communities are now without any banking service. It is as though closures were an inconvenient truth.

The banks would have us believe that this is a story of enlightened pensioners managing their ISAs and direct debits on their smartphones. The truth is somewhat harder to get to. This House, I believe, is not nostalgic, nor opposed to telephone or smartphone banking. We are not against people managing payment on their PCs. But the selective figures provided by RBS-NatWest to justify closure give a completely distorted impression of their NatWest branch to each of the towns in Don Valley. For example, RBS was keen to tell me that 88% of Bawtry customers and 86% of Thorne customers now bank in other ways, and that only 48 customers in Bawtry and 69 in Thorne attend the branch on a weekly basis—although the time period for this estimate was not provided to me. Yet when a member of my staff went to the Bawtry NatWest midweek in mid-January—a quiet post-Christmas week—they saw a queue outside the bank before it opened at 10 am, and at 10.45 am they found a queue more than 10 deep in the bank, with several counters in use. But when I asked RBS how many transactions took place at the Thorne and Bawtry branches in the first hour of each day since the new year, the bank refused to disclose this information. It was “commercially sensitive”, I was told. Nor would RBS furnish me with information on what proportion of the customers are pensioners, how many transactions took place at each branch in the past year, or why neither branch opened on a weekend. On a Saturday morning, footfall could be more frequent.

So much for dialogue and consultation. Well, I say this to Ross McEwan, RBS’s chief executive, and to Les Matheson, NatWest’s chief executive, personal and business lending: please do not patronise me with offers to meet a “senior representative” when you refuse to provide any information that may demonstrate that small businesses, pensioners or the community generally may need the services provided in the Thorne and Bawtry branches more than you care to admit. In response to a question about the possibility of branches sharing premises to make them more viable, I was told by Mr Matheson that NatWest’s arrangement with the post office means that the post office is now “the shared premises”. On that basis, why have any branches at all? The post office is the NatWest!

Where is the genuine attempt to find a model for sustainable banking? Instead of small counters in corner shops, why cannot post offices be located in secure bank premises, sharing them with more than one bank? Why cannot several banks have staff in Thorne or Bawtry on different days of the week, with banks sharing overheads in secure premises to create, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, a community banking hub? That could be a win-win situation.

Where is the attempt to bring young people into branches—some real outreach to make them see the bank as more than an app on a smartphone? I do not know about colleagues around the House today, but I am always being lobbied by banks about their latest wheeze to provide for financial inclusion. They are always telling me about how they want to do more in our schools and communities to give people the skills not only to press a button on a computer or click on an app, but to understand what financial literacy really means. They are always lobbying us, but I do not see any effort to attract young people into branches to help them with financial decisions. Let us not stop at young people. Many of my constituents do not have a bank account at all and have never had one, and there are plenty of other people who still do not know quite how to go about getting a mortgage, how to run an ISA, how to save, or how to pay off debt.

[Ged Killen]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the role of banks in attracting people into the branches. Does she agree that what many banks have been doing over a number of years is trying to drive people out of their branches by taking essential services away from those branches?

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. One would think that banks did not really want to foster demand for real branches, so the case for closure is made for them. They are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Parliament needs to demand more from Government and more from the big five banks, beginning with support for local communities. While branches cluster in large cities in lavish offices, outlying towns and villages are being denuded of bank branches that are anchors for local businesses. We are told that the average customer travels just 2 to 2½ miles to their nearest bank branch. I worry about figures like that, because what they really mean is that the banks estimate all the access across the UK and then divide it, so of course the figures will be distorted by the density of branches in our cities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this very interesting and vital debate on a massive issue that affects communities across our nation. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a particularly passionate and insightful speech about the impact the programme of closures will have on communities in his constituency.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate, and on speaking so passionately and knowledgeably in introducing it this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for his contribution, and for securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee.

I speak with a degree of nostalgia and affection for community banking, given that I grew up around community banks. My mum has worked in retail banking for her whole career, and I remember vividly as a kid being taken down into the vaults of the Bank of Scotland in Charing Cross, where my mum worked. I also remember opening my Squirrel saver account at the Bank of Scotland, and my little plastic Bank of Scotland piggy bank, which was great.

I speak with great affection about community banks, but I also know how important they are, particularly for elderly customers and vulnerable people in the community. They develop a very close and affectionate relationship with the staff, who know them very well, understand their needs and are able to accommodate them. It is a form of personal interaction that builds affectionate relationships and a long-term engagement with banks, and those relationships are hugely valuable for the banks. I would have hoped that more banks recognised how important such personal interaction is for communities —it is vital—and how it contributes to them.

It is a shame to think that that bank in Charing Cross is now a Starbucks. That shows that this is a long-term process of withdrawal from communities, and we must challenge it because our communities are approaching a real cliff edge. My worry is that the programme of bank closures that we have observed, particularly in recent years, appears to target the poorest communities in our society disproportionately. Well over 1,000 branches have closed in the past two years alone.

In my constituency of Glasgow North East, where unemployment is twice the national average—I would add that it has had the lowest turnout in elections in any constituency, which perhaps shows the level of disengagement of many people—we have had the closure of the RBS branches in Possilpark, one of the poorest communities not only in Glasgow but in Scotland, and on Alexandra Parade in Dennistoun in recent months, followed by the closure of the Clydesdale bank in Springburn.

It was a cruel irony that, when I went down to look at the Clydesdale bank branch on Springburn Way, next to the shopping centre, I saw a branch of BrightHouse doing good business—it was doing a roaring trade. BrightHouse is a rapacious organisation that fleeces the poorest communities in our society by, I would argue, mis-selling consumer goods at outrageous rates of interest. That is also something we should challenge. As more people are forced out of normal commercial banking into the hands of these rapacious lenders, such lenders have to be challenged.

[Ged Killen]

My hon. Friend is talking about poorer communities being left behind by these banking changes, and he is absolutely right. Although the recent stay of execution for 10 branches in rural areas of Scotland is welcome, these are some of the wealthiest communities in Scotland, and three of the banks being saved are in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government are the majority shareholder of RBS, so surely there is a role for RBS to step in and look after more such deprived communities?

[Mr Sweeney]

My hon. Friend is correct, and that is one thing we do not see—I have tried to piece together the evidence, but it is not nationally recorded. What is the density of banking operations in the poorest communities in our society? Data is not gathered on that issue. Possilpark and Springburn fall into the most deprived decile on the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, including for employment, health, education and housing. That seems to be the case for a lot of areas with branch closures, certainly in the Glasgow area, and it would be interesting if the Government could oblige banks to provide the data as a matter of national standards. By contrast, in the wealthiest parts of the city—I took the example of Byres Road, which is arguably the wealthiest postcode in Glasgow—every major bank is represented. Banks seem to be withdrawing from the poorest communities while maintaining their services in the richest parts of the city, and if that is extrapolated across the UK, it paints a dismal picture.

It has been argued that bank closures are a reality of technological change because more people are using online banking services. In reality, however, 2 million Scots do not use online banking, and they are disproportionately older people who are not familiar with the change in technology. We must be realistic about the rate of change and how practical it is, so as to reduce the harm caused to society and prevent the generational dislocation that is evidently occurring. More than one third of people who use the services of Citizens Advice Scotland have no or limited internet access. How will they access finance and banking if the major commercial banks disinvest in their local communities? Such closures are not just driven by technological change.

It is a great privilege to be a council member of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, and the banking sector is a huge driver of innovation in our society. As hon. Members have said, we have seen huge technological changes, and one great British innovation that sticks out for me is the ATM. In 2016, the Scot James Goodfellow was inducted into the Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame for his work in inventing and patenting the first ATM in 1966. He did that in response to the desire by the major commercial clearing banks to close on Saturday mornings. People were trying to find a technological way to accommodate that desire, and that is how the ATM came into being and why it is so ubiquitous on our high streets today. We must harness technological change for the public good, not simply use it as a cop-out or an excuse to ridiculously disinvest from our communities at an inappropriate rate. We in the House must challenge that and adapt technological change for the public good; we cannot leave the banks to be judge and jury about the way that such change should occur.

I mentioned that closures are not just driven by technological change, and we must consider the banking sector in the UK. Five of the major commercial banks hold 85% of all current accounts, and personal banking services are combined with riskier investment banking activities. That is symptomatic of a very difficult and high-risk sector that in the last decade alone threatened our national prosperity with the banking crash.

The banking system in this country is an oligopoly and one of the most centralised systems in the world. As Adam Smith recognised, profit-seeking behaviour runs contrary to the common good and the creation of national wealth—we should always remember that when considering this issue. Germany has more than 400 local savings banks, known as Sparkassen, 1,000 co-operative run banks, and 300 private commercial banks, and that contrasts with the five massive banks in this country. Those banks in Germany are characterised by providing “patient finance”, not just to households and consumers but also—critically—to industry.

When James Goodfellow made his speech while being inducted into the Engineering Hall of Fame, he said that the greatest regret of his career was that ATMs were patented and invented in this country, yet they are not built or manufactured here. We have not benefited from this country’s industrial innovation, and our industrial strategy is symptomatic of our banking sector. We do not finance industrial growth because we are seeking high-risk, high-return profit in the City; we are not investing in the real economy, and that contrasts with the German banking system.

Why does Germany have the largest manufacturing sector in Europe, and one of the largest in the world? Because its banking system is resilient enough to underpin patient finance and allow real industrial growth and long-term economic resilience. We see that with German investment in machinery and a productive economy, and with their productivity rate—German workers produce in four days what UK workers produce in five. If we look at that as a broader symptom of malaise in banking and industry, we have to grip it and address it at all levels.

That is why I am so proud to stand here as one of the 39 Co-operative party Members of Parliament: the largest ever group of Co-operative MPs in Parliament and the third-largest party group in this House. The Co-operative party has long recognised the structural problems in society, which is why it proposes turning RBS into a mutual owned by its members and run in a not-for-profit manner in the public interest. The case for that is clearly self-evident and vital: we need that disruptive intervention in the sector.

We want to create a legislative mechanism to support the development of credit unions in the United Kingdom, one perhaps based on the US Community Reinvestment Act 1977, which I think was mentioned previously. The key innovation of the Act, introduced under the Carter Administration, was to combat discrimination and provide access to credit for low and moderate-income communities. If we reflect on the nature of bank closures in the UK, it is highly likely that they disproportionately affect the poorest communities. In the United States, that was known as “redlining”: banks essentially blacklisted communities they thought not worthy of investment. We can make the accusation that that is happening today in this country, albeit on an informal and opaque basis. It is about time a light was shone on the reality of the economic dislocation happening in our poorest communities.

Legislation similar to the Community Reinvestment Act would combat that discrimination by providing access to credit for low and moderate-income communities. It would apply a rating to banks based on their density of operation in poorer areas. In the US, investment credit unions are included as a CRA activity, meaning that the credit union sector is worth billions of dollars and it competes on an equal footing with commercial banks. Santander’s operations in the United States contrast with its operations in the UK: an £11 billion five-year commitment to support community benefits. An increase of 50% was announced in the US. It does not extend its American community reinvestment activity to the UK, because there is no legislative or regulatory imperative to do so.

The picture in the UK today is one of perilous dislocation, with banks withdrawing from our most vulnerable communities. It is the duty of this House and this Government not simply to capitulate to free market dogma, but to temper and control that market in the public interest.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Ged Killen Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we have heard, this debate is about wider failures, which go beyond RBS GRG. I would like to highlight the extent of the problem by drawing on the experience of my constituent Mr Derek Carlyle, who is in the Gallery today. I pay tribute to the late Jimmy Hood, the former Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, who first raised this case in a Westminster Hall debate on 10 March 2010. The record of that will show a more thorough account of the case than I will be able to give today.

Almost eight years later, things have moved on significantly for Mr Carlyle, but the issues he faced and the considerable challenges he had to overcome remain today. What started as a good relationship with RBS took a turn for the worse in 2008, when a promise to provide development funding was withdrawn. Mr Carlyle went on to fight for 10 years in the face of relentless intimidation, bullying and underhand tactics by RBS. It sought to destroy Mr Carlyle, and it almost succeeded. It manipulated his personal bank accounts, seized his assets, forced his company into administration and set about preventing solicitors from acting on his behalf. His solicitor at the time, also a small business, found itself under siege, inundated with requests and bombarded with phone calls—so much so that it was unable carry out its usual functions and provide a service to its other clients. In the end, it felt that it had no option but to cease representing Mr Carlyle. Eventually, his case was taken by a firm of solicitors that was not specialised in litigation and first had to seek the permission of RBS before it could act.

Mr Carlyle had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to settle his case—the only person to do so—and it came at a huge financial and personal expense. He lost his business and his house; his private life was affected; he suffered damage to his reputation; and he was forced into bankruptcy. The great unfairness is that the bankruptcy restriction order against him is still in place today, meaning that he is unable to act as director of a company, unable to borrow more than £500, and even unable to become a Member of this House should he wish to turn his talents to the world of politics. How can it be fair for someone to fight for almost 10 years, be vindicated in the highest court of law, and then, at the end of it all, find themselves significantly disadvantaged in what they can and cannot do in their personal and professional life? The legislation that controls bankruptcy in Scotland is devolved. I am disappointed that the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy in the Scottish Parliament has declined to intervene to correct the unfairness that means that Mr Carlyle is still subject to the bankruptcy restriction order.

Most of us would not have the determination or strength of character that it took for Derek Carlyle to win his case. He was told on more than one occasion to give up. He says that he relied on others who put their neck on the line, and no small measure of luck. If this can happen with a bank that is over 70% owned by the taxpayer, it can happen with any bank. It shows that we have a completely dysfunctional system where the balance of power is heavily in favour of not just the banks, but professional advisers who are integral to the system, such as surveyors, insolvency practitioners and solicitors. Moreover, bad behaviour is rewarded because outcomes like Mr Carlyle’s are rare and almost impossible to pursue. It is in the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises and the banks to sort this problem now. It is not going away, and failing to tackle it will only push it further down the road. The last thing we need is another banking scandal.

It is not sustainable for banks to continue to act as judge and jury, and it should not take what Derek Carlyle had to go through to reach a fair outcome. I fully support the recommendation of the APPG on fair business banking. We need to bring complaints out into the open. We need an affordable, accessible dispute resolution process. It needs to be a completely independent system that sits outside the regulatory structure and has the knowledge and power to deal with the complex disputes that will be brought before it. The best way of achieving that is through a public tribunal system, and I hope that Members across the House will back those calling for that.