Special Educational Needs and Disability Funding

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important debate and continuing in the footsteps of her predecessor, who held a similar debate last year—he was very passionate about this topic.

Special educational needs and disability funding is close to my heart. I have seen first hand the powerful impact that the right school and support can have. My nephew, Joseph Gibson, has Down’s syndrome, and he absolutely loves his school and his friends at St John’s RC School in Chingford. His progress has been remarkable, as he has blossomed into a confident, funny and bright teenager. As MPs, we will all have met families struggling to get the best education for their children. There is nothing any parent wants more than for their children to be happy, safe and confident at school, and for them to make friends.

The percentage of children with special needs in West Sussex is higher than average. The system is under increasing pressure, made more challenging by the complexity of needs, which grows as we get better at diagnosing development needs and doing something to help children develop their potential.

I recently visited Fordwater School, a special needs school in my constituency that does a fantastic job supporting the most vulnerable children and young adults in my community. Sadly, the school is under huge pressures driven by increased demand and insufficient funding. It currently spends 93% of its budget on staffing, which is necessary to ensure that the children in its care are kept safe. Subsequently, budgets are super tight, and parts of the school are not fit for purpose. When I visited Fordwater, three classes were under enforced closure due to water leaks. Fortunately, the school secured extra funding to fix the roof, although not to address the underlying issue. More money is needed in the capital budget to maintain the buildings correctly. The school cares for and educates some of the most vulnerable in society, yet the facilities are simply inadequate. Their primary block is comprised of dated pre-fab buildings described as “condemnable” by the headteacher, Sophie Clarke.

This Friday, I will visit St Anthony’s School in Chichester, which is oversubscribed by two classes, putting extra pressure on resources. Despite that, it is receiving more and more admission requests. Fordwater School is in the same boat, with applications that could fill the school by half again. That overfilling is particularly challenging as many of the pupils need sensory spaces and quiet places to handle behavioural issues. Sometimes that becomes increasingly difficult as the numbers rise.

St Anthony’s School is rated “outstanding” by Ofsted, and has been for the past nine years, so it is increasingly popular. Headteacher Helen Ball told me:

“it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the provision we want with inadequate accommodation and funding.”

That is despite a recent increase in the top-up fund from £3,920 to £4,100 per pupil, as the costs that the school incurs far outweigh that increase.

My local authority, West Sussex County Council, is receiving £8.3 million more in its designated schools grant—an increase of 10.4%, which is very welcome—yet there is a spending gap of £2.4 million. The council has appealed to the Secretary of State to plug that gap, and I hope the Minister will support that. Our local need is growing, as I am sure it is in many areas. We have more and more children on educational health and care plans; the figure is up by 66% since 2015.

One example of rising costs is the home-to-school travel costs, paid by the council—they have increased by over 20% in the past two years. I have heard from several parents who are fighting hard to get an education, health and care plan assessment for their child. Many receive insufficient support through the application process, which is overly complex. We should simplify this process, to make assessment more straightforward.

To cope with the ever-increasing demand, Chichester needs capital investment to expand. We simply need more places and, in some cases, to make safe the special educational needs provision. We need to ensure that we are providing brilliant care, not just adequate care. We need more investment to do that. In the long term, that will save money. Many children travel significant distances to access the specialist support they need, due to overstretched services. One child about to start at Fordwater School will commute 40 minutes each day to attend the school’s autism centre for 16 to 19-year-olds.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. This issue is dear to my heart and I want to see change in my constituency of Upper Bann, and Northern Ireland. Does she agree that we need to create the best school environment? She mentioned the distance that people must travel. A colleague of mine in the Northern Ireland Assembly is bringing forward mandatory training on autism for teaching staff and classroom assistants. Does she agree we should implement that throughout the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gillian Keegan]

I agree—that is a good point. For new Members who might not know, I should say that autism awareness training is available to all Members and our staff here. We have done it, and it is also useful for surgeries to ensure our staff are trained. The more that we can help, the better. Talking about autism and understanding how to make places more autism-friendly is vital.

Having to place children outside an area because no provision is available also drives up expenditure: on average, that costs £45,000 per child, compared to £19,000 to place them in a local special school. Last December, nearly 500 children were funded out of the county. That is a massive cost, so there is a pressing business case for strategic investment in the county, rather than endless reactionary spending.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern not only about children being placed outside their area, but about the fact that many of those children are placed in unfit settings—not registered as official educational settings and, therefore, not inspected by Ofsted? Local authorities get over that through a code of conduct. Does she agree that all alternative provision settings should be registered and properly monitored, so that those children get the help they need and the education they deserve?

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes; that sounds like a sensible suggestion, although I have not come across that problem myself. Most of the facilities the children are sent to are amazing: we do not have equivalent facilities in West Sussex. Many of them are private, which is why they are so expensive.

Our local special needs schools are clearly stretched to the limit, and that also has implications for staff. Understandably, children with certain behavioural challenges often need extra support. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined in her response any steps being taken to ensure that mental health support is available for staff, who endure much more emotional stress in the workplace than staff in many other school settings.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Understandably, the hon. Member has focused on complex needs. However, does she accept that about 10% of all pupils have speech and language difficulties, and that speech and language—oral communication—is the basis of all learning, whether in mathematics, reading or any academic subject? Yet the money given per child varies from about £30 to £300; there is very much a postcode lottery.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties. Does the hon. Member agree that we should have a more consistent approach, focusing on the basic skills of speech and language—problems with those can manifest themselves in mental health and other issues—as well as on the more complex needs?

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Such education is a life-changer. I go back to my nephew, who has Down’s syndrome: his speech is amazing now because of that type of support. As the hon. Gentleman said, frustration, behavioural issues and mental health issues can occur if someone cannot communicate to the best of their ability, so such education is absolutely vital. It is one of those things that is a business case all in itself, in enabling a young person to develop and to be the best that they can be, and in preventing other issues from developing. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that such education is vital.

I am focusing on complex needs, but I am sure that the whole range of different needs will be covered in the debate. As they grow up, children with special needs may need additional support, including with things that most of us do not think about, such as getting on a bus, cooking dinner or being safe on the street. They may need additional support with all those things. It also seems that there is less support available as children enter their late teens or early twenties.

Chichester College has paired up with a fantastic local charity, the Aldingbourne Trust. Together they run a purpose-built shared accommodation centre called York Road, which supports students with special needs. At Chichester College, these students are learning all the skills they need in life, including healthy living, employability, cooking, budgeting and e-safety; those lessons are then reinforced by the live-in staff at their home in York Road.

The programme is remarkably successful. On their arrival at the beginning of the year, none of the students could travel independently; they relied on their parents or the local authority. However, after just two months, all of them now ride the local bus back and forth, and they have gained independence and confidence. That is transforming their lives. Relationship-building is also valuable, as many of these young adults are at very high risk of social isolation. What is brilliant is that they have all developed strong friendships with their flatmates and the staff who support them.

This intensive method of rehearsal, reinforcement and reflection works. Furthermore, it is totally in line with the Department of Education’s preparing for adulthood agenda. I urge the Minister to examine the success of the programme and consider whether such partnerships could be replicated and expanded in all other areas, because parents worry about what will happen to children who have complex special needs as they get older.

The project is fantastic, but the next step into the working world is fraught with difficulty and I hope the Government will pay more attention to that issue. Young adults with special educational needs require additional support to get into the workplace, and I would welcome greater collaboration with learning providers and employers to bridge the transition from school to work, including providing incentives for businesses to offer employment opportunities that are also social opportunities, to support that transition.

Proper support for children and young people with special needs is crucial both for the children and young people themselves and their families, and it can totally transform their life experience; in addition, offering children positive and well-rounded support reduces dependency later on in life. I urge the Government to continue to invest in these young people. That will benefit everybody.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Motorhomes and Vehicle Excise Duty

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones]

Absolutely, and the right hon. Gentleman must have read my speech because I will come on to that very point later.

What happens to staycationing locations across the UK that will lose income and tax revenue because of these proposals? Have the Government completed any studies on this issue? What do they propose to do for people who lose their jobs in the tourism sector because of this arrangement?

We know that staycations stop people from getting on planes, which damage our air, or taking cruises, which damage our marine ecosystems and pollute our waters. So, by holidaying at home, we see lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions and thus less pressure is put on our environment.

The increase in taxation is already having a significant impact on the staycation industry. Unlike the car industry, the motorhome sector saw modest growth year on year up to September 2019, when it recorded a fall of over 7%. That was the very month that the increase came into effect.

I would like the Minister to explain why the Government are penalising 15,000 motorhome-owners, who all contribute to our domestic tourism industry and only use their motorhomes for leisure purposes for about 30-odd days a year, as we have already heard. The policy cannot be about reducing air pollution levels, because if it was, the Government would have a more thought-through and logical approach.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I agree with her. There is a disparity between motorhomes, which on average do about 3,000 miles a year, and light vehicles and vans, which do 12,800 miles a year on average with exactly the same carbon dioxide emissions per mile. Does she agree that if we are trying to tackle climate change, motorhomes are not the area on which to focus?

Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 8th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who gave a wonderful and powerful speech. I think we would all agree with every word he said. It is also a pleasure to participate in this debate and to support the Bill put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who does so much to speak up for the Jewish community. As he says, it is particularly poignant to be discussing this, given that less than two weeks ago we were here marking Holocaust Memorial Day.

In my contribution to the Holocaust Memorial Day debate last month, I raised the story of Simon Gronowski, who survived the holocaust and managed to escape the gas chambers of Auschwitz after being thrown by his mother from a moving transportation train in 1943. I had the honour of welcoming him to Parliament last week, where community groups from Chichester staged an opera that was based on his life story. Simon lost his mother and his sister in the gas chambers. He also lost his home and his possessions. He lived out the rest of the war in hiding, being cared for by another family.

Simon’s story is unique—it is as unique as it is inspirational, after he forgave the collaborator who put him on the train—but his experience of discrimination and loss is very common. The 1930s and 1940s were marked by Jewish people and minority groups having their property stolen and precious objects confiscated. In many countries occupied by the Nazis, special departments were set up to organise the stealing of Jewish property and items of value. Money, houses, jewellery and works of art were the most common items stolen. As recently as 2012, the state prosecutor in Augsburg, Germany, discovered and confiscated more than 1,400 framed and unframed paintings stolen by one of the Nazi war profiteers, Hildebrand Gurlitt. It is estimated that about 100,000 items still have not been repatriated to their original owners or families, having been looted by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945.

In my view, one that I am sure will be shared by every Member who participates in this debate, there should be no time limit on trying try to right the wrongs of the past by returning lost possessions to the families affected by these atrocious crimes. By scrapping the original expiry date, as clause 1 would do, we will be following the precedent of most other European countries, such as France and Germany, which do not have time limits on survivors and their heirs making claims.

It was absolutely right that in 2009 Parliament enacted legislation to allow our museums to return items looted during the Nazi era. Thanks to the work of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, 23 works of art have been successfully returned since it was set up in 2000. We have a moral duty to ensure that any other items held by our museums and galleries that were stolen in such awful circumstances are returned to their rightful owners. As has been argued before, many may simply be unaware that they are in possession of such pieces.

Although not many objects have been discovered in Britain, we should not treat that as a reason to shut the door on heirs and families making claims in future. After all, these objects were cruelly and illegally stolen from victims who were often left with nothing. That is why I am pleased to hear that the Government have given their full support to scrapping the so-called sunset clause of the 2009 Act. As I have said, there should be no time limit on our attempts to right the wrongs of the past. As the hon. Member for Ealing North said, we cannot undo the insidious crimes inflicted by the Nazis, but we can make sure that survivors and heirs have their rightful property returned to them. This is a moral duty as much as any other.

In 1998, 44 states committed themselves to the Washington principles, which sought to make sure that possessions ransacked by the Nazis were returned to their rightful owners and families. If we do not amend the 2009 Act to remove the sunset clause, we will do ourselves a great disservice in the upholding of our international and moral agreements, which is why I give my full support to the Bill.

Social Mobility and the Economy

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for securing this debate.

Everybody should be given the opportunity to make the most of their life, irrespective of where they were born. It is equality of opportunity that matters. The Social Mobility Commission report published last year identified hotspots and coldspots, which were areas with higher and lower levels of social mobility. I never considered Knowsley, where I grew up, to be a particularly socially mobile region, but it ranks reasonably well at 171st out of the 325 local authorities in England. What may come as a surprise is that my constituency of Chichester is 287th. Chichester is not unique in that respect, as a quarter of coastal authorities were classified as coldspots, and only 6% were identified as hotspots.

The problems are clear and have been for generations. Tackling the issue is complex, but incredibly important, not only for the young people who gain an opportunity to change their circumstances, but for the economy. In 2016, the Sutton Trust estimated that just reaching Europe’s social mobility average would equate to an annual increase to GDP of 2%. It is key that we bring out people’s talents at all ages. Almost every one of my classmates in my failing comprehensive school in Knowsley had talent and the potential to achieve whatever they put their minds to. Some of us beat the odds despite our school, but others did not get that opportunity. They were let down in school and were not offered enough support or alternative routes into work when they left at just 16. From attending a failing comprehensive school every day for five years, I know there was as much talent there as on the playing fields of Eton.

My social mobility journey came in the form of an apprenticeship that I started at 16, so I know from personal experience the benefits they can provide. It gave me seven years of work experience, a degree and no student debt—all I needed to build a career. It was a business that changed my life, not school. More than 3.4 million young people have started apprenticeships since 2010. Although that is a significant achievement, we must work to ensure that they are high-quality training programmes. I am pleased that we are seeing a greater emphasis on quality, with advanced and higher level apprenticeships up by 35% last year as compared with the previous year.

Colleges, universities and business are developing successful, collaborative relationships. Chichester College has seen more than 25,000 apprentices pass through its doors, and its success continues with increased participation year on year. Some 94% of level 2 apprentices continue into employment or further education. The college has put employability at the heart of its curriculum, and it is working with around 5,000 businesses to do that. At the University of Chichester, 34% of its largely regional intake are from the lowest household income groups, and more than half are the first generation in their family to participate in higher education. The university has increased its numbers and is reaching out to the latent local marketplace.

It is important to remember that even if all those opportunities pass someone by, it is never too late for them to learn and improve their opportunities in life. There are such programmes as “Get into”, which is run by the Prince’s Trust; the “Choose Work” programme that Chichester District Council runs, which is designed to help young people get work experience; and the brilliant work of Business in the Community, which works to give young people CV and interview training and work experience. Many businesses are now involved in Business in the Community.

Different areas have always varied in social mobility outcomes. My life has been what some might call a social mobility success story. The solution to better outcomes for young people is multi-faceted, but we should tap into talent wherever it is to satisfy growing demand and bolster our economy.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Finished with eight seconds to go. Excellent.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

We are asking the Government to consider the consequence that would occur if the money were available to be claimed back retrospectively, and I contend that the consequences would be that we could spend more money on police and fire services in Scotland, we could counter this Government’s reduction in the block grant and things would be better for the police and fire services in Scotland. This is a matter of fairness. Nothing has changed except the Government’s position, and they should give us back the money that they have always owed us.

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 7. There has been a failure of successive Governments to tackle the issues with our housing stock. Since the 1970s we have, on average, built 160,000 new homes a year in England, and the consensus is that we need to build between 225,000 and 275,000 homes a year to keep up with population growth, to keep up with an ageing population and to tackle years of under-supply. That is why I am pleased the Government are taking steps to address the situation through accelerated house building, resulting in an increase in supply of 217,000 houses in the past year.

Increased demand and an historic lack of supply have inevitably pushed prices up. On average, house prices have risen by 7% a year since 1980, but the rise is not uniform. Areas such as the south-east have suffered more than others, with a 369% increase in prices since 2005. I see that in my own family, with many of my young cousins in Knowsley buying a home in their 20s on average salaries, as their parents did before them, but that is not the case in the south-east and other parts of the country.

Large price hikes obviously affect young people more, as they are typically on lower incomes and struggle to raise the capital needed to save for a deposit. When I bought my first home in the mid-1990s, around 65% of my friends were doing the same, and we just earned average incomes. Now, less than 27% of 25 to 34-year-olds are home owners, and I would be willing to bet that not many of them are in Chichester, where the average house price is more than £365,000 and the average salary is just £25,000.

The point was highlighted to me by a young couple living in my constituency, whose high rental costs mean they are unable to make any substantial savings towards a deposit. They are grateful for the schemes introduced by the Government to help them save for a deposit. Changes to stamp duty will also help first-time buyers such as my constituents to reduce the savings needed to cover the cost of purchasing a home. They will no longer pay stamp duty on properties up to the threshold of £300,000, and only 5% of the cost over £300,000 on properties up to £500,000, so 80% of first-time buyers should pay no stamp duty at all. This policy removes one of the barriers to the housing market, and it will help to give people the opportunity to reach a dream that many of us achieved in our 20s and 30s.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 2 in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and I will say a few words about amendments 13 and 14 to schedule 3 that address a technical point of some importance raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who regrets that he cannot be here to speak to the amendments himself.

New clause 2 would ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce an independent, verifiable, non-political estimate of the yield that could be obtained by adding 1p in the £1—a 1% increase—to the standard, higher and additional rates of income tax. We are doing this not to give the Treasury computer some exercise—I am sure that it gets plenty—but to produce an estimate that we can all subscribe to of the revenue base that would exist for an earmarked tax to finance the NHS. This Report stage is clearly not the place to debate the NHS, but I want to raise the basic principle of how the Treasury might finance it.

In the middle of last year, the chief executive of NHS England produced an estimate that about £6 billion was required to keep the NHS on a sustainable footing and to avoid a serious winter crisis—this was about £4 billion for the NHS itself and £2 billion for social care through local councils. In the event, the Treasury, in its November Budget came up with about £2 billion—we can argue about how much of that was real, but let us say it was £2 billion—but we had the winter crisis in any case, and it has been discussed here on many occasions. We have heard about the long trolley waits, the elderly people waiting in hospital for placements and the stress on staff. We hope the winter is now over, although we cannot be absolutely certain of that. The issue I want to raise is how we prevent this situation from happening in the next financial year.

The proposal that we have an earmarked allocation of revenue from a small increase in income tax comes from a commission that my party set up, consisting of not just supporters but a lot of independent people with authority in the NHS. It includes the former chief executives of NHS England, of the Patients Association and of the Royal College of Nursing, and the former chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, among others of similar status. They argue that the only sensible, practical way now to prevent this endlessly recurring financial and then real crisis in the health service is to have a dedicated source of tax revenue.

There have traditionally been two objections to such a proposal, one of which was public opinion—the public do not like higher taxes—but the survey evidence from a big Sky poll some months ago suggested that if people were absolutely confident that the money would be allocated to the health service, about 70% of them would support such an income tax increase; other polls have suggested the same.

The second objection was a traditional Treasury one, which was that such an approach makes public spending and taxation more difficult to manage. I would cite as a counter to that the recent comments of the former head of the Treasury, Lord Macpherson, who presided over it in the five years when I was in the coalition Government. He is a massively impressive man. I confess that we did not always agree—he tended to regard public spending as some kind of disease—but none the less, he is a very authoritative source, and he appears to have been converted to the idea that such a measure is the only way in which the NHS can be put on a properly sustainable footing.

Looking ahead to the next financial year, which is what we are asking the Government to do, the question is: how are we going to avoid the kind of problems we have had this year? The first way is by the Government simply muddling through on their current spending assumptions, and probably in the next Budget, in the autumn, the Chancellor will come up with another rabbit out of the hat, which will be inadequate and too late.

The other alternative is to hope that there is some kind of advance payment of the “Brexit dividend”. I think that we are all familiar with these arguments about the £300 million a week that was supposed to come back—I think we have been promised £18 billion a year. We now know that this is almost entirely phoney and cannot be relied upon. Of course it was a gross, not a net, estimate, and we now know that we are going to pay out at least £40 billion. There will be continued annual payments through the transition period and possibly additional ad hoc payments on top of that.

Even on a fairly charitable view, we would be talking about five to six years before there is any dividend, and even that depends on a continued constant rate of growth. If growth slows down, as it almost certainly will post Brexit, this dividend may never appear. So if we cannot rely on a Brexit dividend and we are going to get past ad hoc financing, some new mechanism needs to be found, and the purpose of our new clause is to open up that discussion. I do not propose to press the new clause to a Division, but I am interested to hear how the Treasury currently regards earmarked taxation and whether its thinking has advanced in any way.

Finally, I wish to say a few words in support of the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, one of whose constituents has raised a substantial point about an HMRC proposal in the Bill that relates to dormant companies and their pension funds. The proposal is that such schemes should be de-registered when the companies have become dormant. The reasoning behind it is perfectly sensible: some such funds have been used for scams, to the cost of the public and HMRC, so HMRC proposes to de-register them when such things happen.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland’s constituent has pointed out some unintended consequences of this apparently sensible proposal, one of which is that there are quite a lot of cases in which the pension funds of dormant companies have been taken over by other companies. There are other cases in which a sponsoring company may be dormant but the trustees have kept it going on a pay-in basis, and it is perfectly sustainable.

The other aspect of the proposal that potentially causes a problem is that de-registration could happen after a closure of one month. A good recent example would be Monarch airlines. As we all know, it takes a lot more than a month to wind up a pension scheme, so it is a bit pre-emptory. I do recognise, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland’s constituent, that the power for HMRC would be discretionary. The Minister may say that we should trust HMRC always to get these things right, but it may be more sensible, as amendments 13 and 14 suggest, to have a carve-out to deal with cases that clearly do not fall within its remit.

The purpose of the amendments is to suggest that the de-registration activities should be restricted to the most recent six years, because that is when the scams have occurred and we do not need to go back into history. There should be a specific carve-out for cases in which there may well have been a pension fund succession. The provision would be that there should be at least one dormant employer and that a two-year period should be allowed for pension funds that have been maintained for a substantial time and are therefore clearly viable. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland would pretend that those are necessarily the perfect solutions to the problem, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that there is an issue and get the Treasury to reflect on it and perhaps come up with a superior solution.

Community Bank Closures

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing this debate. Technology has been used to modernise the banking sector for decades and, as an industry, banking has seized the opportunity to use technology mostly to improve the customer experience wherever possible. In the ’90s, I worked as a technology procurement manager for a bank when we were upgrading branch infrastructure. Thinking back, the introduction of the ATM network was one of the first steps away from personalised, face-to-face banking, but what would we do without them? We cannot do without them, and I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Clwyd South about how important it is, as we face changes in the banking industry, that the ATM network and free access to it is preserved throughout the country.

The revolution in FinTech has forced another change in the banking model, and our banks no longer collect the income of merchants and disburse the cash to individuals. Our behavioural patterns have changed with technology. In 1988 we had more than 20,000 bank branches in the UK, and 25% of adults were paid in cash. In many respects, cash has had its heyday. Now accounting for less than 50% of transactions, we saw an 11% decline between 2015 and 2016 alone. Cash may still be king, but its crown is slipping.

That trend is set to continue. Already 6% of the population rarely use cash. Young people, in particular, prefer digital payment methods such as card, online and mobile banking. The model of branch banking as a conduit for cash movements therefore needs to change to ensure that banks remain commercially viable.

The speed of change has surprised many communities, with the uptake of digital banking being relatively recent, and it is important that adequate notice is given when changes are made to local banking services. In 2012 at least one of our major banks had no mobile users at all, but today there are more logins a day on mobile banking than via the web. Meanwhile, the average branch bank customer goes to the bank every two or three months.

Branch closures throughout the nation are predominantly a response to declining demand. In my constituency, Barclays closed its branch in East Wittering citing a 10% fall in transactions at the branch in a single year. However, Barclays has identified 80 customers who exclusively used the branch for their banking needs. Those people need alternative provision.

When a branch closes, it is important that it gets in touch to advise customers of all the services that are available online, via telephone or via mobile banking. Many banks go beyond that and offer training and support to customers, especially the elderly and most vulnerable, to ensure that they are not excluded by the shift to digital services.

Like everybody else in this discussion, I am concerned that there is an increased risk of financial exclusion due to either a lack of digital know-how or a lack of access to the technology. Personal banking is something that many people, especially older members of our society, greatly value, and in many cases the alternatives are not suitable.

We need to ensure those customers know that the Post Office offers branch banking services for all major high street banks and can facilitate all the things that people do in a bank, including traditional cash and cheque services. That is a good alternative, as more than 98% of the population live within three miles of one of our 11,600 post offices nationwide, which makes it Europe’s biggest retail network.

The structure of community services is changing, with our traditional high street names consolidating into shared services. Becoming a community hub is important. The Post Office has managed that well in Chichester and is collaborating with retailers such as corner shops and book shops. That is a win-win for sustainability. Many Members will have been involved in debates about post office closures. We need to make sure that the network of face-to-face branch services is secured in some way, and post offices are a good alternative.

It is important that such services are well designed, as other Members have mentioned. I recently visited the new Chichester post office, which is co-located with Sussex Stationers and British Bookshops. There are seats available for those who cannot stand in a queue for long, and staff are on hand to assist people who are using self-service kiosks or who are waiting for the cashier. Needed privacy is provided. The service is similar to that provided by the old bank branches. That is the right model, but these new post offices need to be well designed, and perhaps more could be done to promote best practice in design.

The Government have made significant strides in improving both mobile and broadband coverage, with 95% of households now able to get superfast broadband. Alas, in rural areas such as my constituency, many people still suffer from areas of poor connectivity, with some areas of my constituency ranking in the worst 10% in the country. As we increasingly rely on digital banking services, blanket connectivity is becoming increasingly important. We must continue our investment in digital connectivity to mitigate the impact of branch closures and to allow people to utilise the technology of today. It is clear though that for some of the older generation, the digital era will already have passed them by. Expecting them to bank digitally is simply not realistic and in cases such as these, the post office must be advertised as the new place for local face-to-face banking. I am concerned that banks might be reticent to advertise post office banking as they may compete in some other areas.

All businesses must adapt to stay ahead of the game and the major banks are under increasing pressure to modernise their services, with new entrants disrupting banking models for businesses and individuals. FinTech firms are creating new and efficient financial platforms, offering lower prices to consumers for financial transactions. To keep up, our major banks have to move to a more customer-centric and digital model of working.

Changes in the banking sector have revolutionised how we do business and how we handle personal finances and, overall, I believe that that has been to the benefit of society. The advent of the microchip, the internet and mobile services have fundamentally altered many of our industries, and banking is no different. Banking practices have had to change to remain commercially viable and banks have had to invest in digital banking platforms, which has made life easier for most of us, but of course we must take care of those who are not willing or able use the services. These individuals must be informed of the other service providers, such as the post offices, and banks that are closing branches have a moral obligation to do that.

Balancing the Public Finances

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

We can change many things in this House. We can pass and change many laws, but the laws we cannot change are those of arithmetic. No matter how big the abacus, no responsible person can ignore the size of our country’s debt and the deficit we inherited. Our debt as a percentage of GDP was roughly 30% to 40% for decades, yet now, courtesy of the last Labour Government, compounded by a global recession, that debt is above 80% of GDP. Those figures alone should make it clear that borrowing more at this stage would be completely irresponsible.

How much does that debt cost us in interest payments? Currently we spend £48 billion servicing our debt. That is dead money. What else could we spend it on? There are many areas where we could use that extra cash. It is nearly half the NHS budget; that is a lot of doctors and nurses. It is more than our whole education budget; that is a hefty pay rise for teachers and more school facilities, with plenty of spare change.

I understand that many years of trying to live within our means is hard. However, the short-term happiness of spending will have dreadful consequences for our country’s finances and make things even harder. It would be the height of irresponsibility to mortgage our future, and there is no moral case for bingeing on the nation’s credit card, least of all when we are forcing others to pay the bill—namely, our children and grandchildren. As anybody who has ever got themselves into credit card debt will understand, it is impossible to pay back the original debt when all your cash is taken paying off the interest payments alone.

That would set us back just at the point when all our leading indicators are heading in the right direction: we have seen a significant reduction in the deficit, which is down by two thirds; unemployment is the lowest it has been for 40 years; the minimum wage is up by 26%; pensions are protected; 1 million new businesses have been created since 2010; and we continue to invest more in our NHS and schools. Those are signs not of a country living under austerity but a nation starting to prosper, despite the dreadful debt burden handed to us by the last Government.

Economy and Jobs

Gillian Keegan Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). It is a great privilege to address this House as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Chichester. The name Keegan is usually associated with footballing greatness where I grew up in Liverpool. However, the House may be interested to learn that the last person with the same surname in this place was in fact my late father-in-law, Denis Michael Keegan. He was a Conservative MP in the ’50s, and he made his maiden speech in support of the abolition of the death penalty—a noble cause, as I am sure you will all agree.

My predecessor, Andrew Tyrie, served this House and the people of Chichester with great distinction for 20 years. Andrew is best remembered for his strong chairmanship of the Treasury Select Committee, asking probing questions to bankers in the wake of the 2008 banking crisis without fear or favour. In Chichester, he is remembered for defending our A&E facility at St Richard’s hospital—a cause that I will continue to champion.

I am very lucky to represent Chichester. It is set in the beautiful South Downs national park, and we have something for everyone: a historic, vibrant cathedral city with a world-famous theatre; the thriving town of Midhurst, the home of Cowdray Park; car and horse-racing at Goodwood; sailing at Bosham, Itchenor, Birdham and Dell Quay; and our vibrant fishing community in Selsey, which we look forward to growing, alongside our farming and agricultural businesses, as we leave the European Union.

Chichester also faces challenges, with demands for more housing and the pressure this places on our local infrastructure. One of the greatest challenges is the seriously congested A27, and I will work with the councils and community groups to get the best solution to this long-standing local issue. Ninety-one per cent. of pupils in my constituency attend a good or outstanding school, but we need to ensure proper funding to build on that record.

Today, we are debating the economy, and it is vital that we preserve the strong economic foundations that this Government have put in place. One success has been our approach to apprenticeships, and I strongly believe that that route into the workplace has many benefits for young people today. I grew up in Huyton in Knowsley and went to the local comprehensive school. I left school at 16 and started work as an apprentice in a car factory in Kirby. General Motors invested in me, sponsored my degree, and gave me the life chance that enabled me to have a successful international business career in the tech sector for the next 27 years. Today, there is a false narrative about multinational companies and the contribution that they make to our society. Our country needs the inward investment and the jobs that such companies bring, and young people in particular benefit from the high-quality apprenticeships and graduate programmes that they offer. We need their investment if we are to fund the public services we want.

The digital revolution we are seeing in the world today is reshaping industry. The biggest taxi company in the world does not own any taxis, and the biggest hotel provider does not own any hotels. Our young people need digital skills, so I welcome the Government’s focus on technical education, as we must prioritise such skills in academic and vocational qualifications. The digital revolution is fundamental to our country’s competitiveness as we leave the EU and can also help us to solve the productivity puzzle. We must embrace the change. The digital revolution that we are living through represents a profound change in our economy, but we may only recognise that in hindsight. The employment prospects of future generations depend on us stepping up to these 21st-century opportunities. I am here today because of the life chance I had at 16. Everybody deserves that chance.

[Several hon. Members rose—]