(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lucy Rigby
The package of sanctions in place today is stronger than the package of sanctions that was in place last week. We have a world-leading sanctions regime in this country: at the moment, we have more than 3,300 sanctions on Russian entities, businesses, individuals and ships—the list goes on and on. Why does it go on and on? It is because of our steadfast support for Ukraine.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Scotland is an energy superpower, so it is particularly galling for constituents and businesses in my constituency, which is a two and a half hour drive end to end, and where road vehicles are an absolute necessity to conduct daily life, to face the prices they currently face. Will the Government commit to using the hundreds of millions of pounds of extra tax revenue from VAT for a VAT freeze for the duration of the current crisis?
(3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is pleasing to see a significant number of Members in the Chamber to be part of this Adjournment debate, by hearing it and perhaps by participating. I am aware of about 15 hon. Members who have asked to intervene on me, which is a high number for an Adjournment debate. There may be more whom I am unaware of. The Minister has kindly indicated that she is also happy to take interventions, so if hon. Members feel like spreading the love when they think I have had enough, that would be much appreciated.
On that point—[Laughter.] First, may I commend the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for bringing this matter forward? I spoke to him beforehand, and I thought it was important to put this point on the record. I have had 11 banks close in my constituency, and seeing the decline of banks in rural areas has been excessively worrying and frustrating. Although every bank that has pulled out of the peninsula in Ards has promised working hubs, the reality is that a member of staff in a room without even the facility to print off a bank statement for a client is not acceptable. Does the hon. Member not agree that a hub must have banking facilities, as well as a post office, and that we must make sure that there is not just a member of staff for two hours a day or a week?
Graham Leadbitter
I absolutely agree with that. It is important that, where there are hubs, they are open for a reasonable period of time and are accessible at different points of the day to different people with different needs.
The important subject of banking hub criteria has been raised many times in this place and in Westminster Hall, and it is an issue I have campaigned on since I was elected and during my time as a councillor and a council leader. In 2015, Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey had 22 bank branches. Just 11 years later, the number has dropped to just six in the latest data from January this year; that is a 77% reduction. That is six banks for almost 100,000 people living in the fifth largest constituency by geographical area in the UK—a constituency that it takes about two and half hours to drive from end to end.
The following bank branches alone have closed since 2020: in Forres, the Bank of Scotland and TSB closed their branches in 2022; in Badenoch and Strathspey, the Bank of Scotland closed its branch in Aviemore in 2024; and in Grantown-on-Spey, the Bank of Scotland and the TSB closed their branches in 2020 and 2021; while in Nairn, the TSB closed its branch in 2021, and most recently, the town lost its last bank. Link, the organisation that monitors bank closures and which is tasked with determining where new shared services should be, reports the total number of bank closures across the UK as 2,237 since 2022. For the same period, 276 banking hubs have been recommended by Link.
In this modern age, when there is digital banking on websites and through apps and when, frankly, fewer and fewer people are using physical bank branches, it is not a surprise to see those closures. However, it is how we respond that is important. There remain many vulnerable people and, indeed, certain types of businesses that rely heavily on cash banking and we cannot allow the rug to be pulled out from under them.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for securing this debate and choosing this topic. He is so right that there are older and vulnerable people who are not able to access banking services or to access cash because of high street bank closures. Does he share my view that the Government’s introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Bill today in the other place presents a great opportunity for them to consider how banking services and access to cash can be provided in rural areas?
Graham Leadbitter
I absolutely agree. I am pleased to see the Bill coming forward, as it will provide opportunities to make progress on this important issue.
There is also the vital question of community sustainability. The loss of banking services in rural communities makes it harder to attract people to live and work there. It also means the loss of local banking jobs that have long provided access to respected professional jobs and the potential of a career in financial services.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The hon. Member rightly talks about the lack of banking access in his constituency and in rural areas. I have noticed that there is now a lack of banking access even in my urban constituency in Glasgow, particularly in areas such as Castlemilk and Carnwadric. That is particularly bad because some of the people there do not have access to a car. Does the hon. Member agree that banking hubs are also important in urban areas where those services are not provided?
Graham Leadbitter
Certainly; there are some areas, particularly large estates in urban areas, where we can see services disappearing simply because of how people live their lives. It is important that the state takes action to protect those critical services that people access. I was a student in Glasgow, and I see lots of places where there were banks that I used when I was a student which simply do not exist any more.
I know that this is an issue that the hon. Member cares about passionately. I am sure that like me, he has had issues with people, particularly elderly people, who fear that they have been scammed. It is all very well saying, “Get online and we’ll see if we can sort this out,” but there is nothing like a face-to-face meeting and somebody from the Bank of Scotland, the Clydesdale or the Royal Bank of Scotland saying, “No, you’re okay,” or, “This is what we’ll do.” With all due respect, that reassurance is not there online. That is why I believe that face-to-face advice is hugely important.
Graham Leadbitter
I absolutely agree about face to face, particularly for vulnerable people, but also for businesses or maybe somebody who might be thinking about starting up in business. Being able to talk to a community banker who can give them a little bit of early advice about access to basic business services is really helpful.
The hon. Gentleman has been very generous with his time in allowing all these interventions. Does he agree that part of this is about fairness? Without the access to the professional advice that they would get from face-to-face banking, some businesses might not succeed as much as they should have done. In my own constituency, we have seen high streets being closed, but we have not yet been successful in getting a bank hub in Abbots Langley, despite there being a community demand and, I would argue, a need for it.
Graham Leadbitter
The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point and I will come on to that later in my remarks.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We will leave him in peace for a while after this. For nine months I have been trying to get a banking hub in Ammanford, which is a post-industrial town, but Link has turned us down. We went to appeal and it turned us down again. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need consistency in applying Financial Conduct Authority guidance? All the elements seem to qualify that town for a banking hub, but yet again, Link has turned us down. There seems to be a lack of consistency in applying the rules.
Graham Leadbitter
Absolutely. That consistency is vital, but flexibility within the criteria is also vital. I will come on to that as well.
It is frankly hard to stomach that the big high street banks use the argument of increased digital banking to justify local bank closures while building large, centralised banking centres in our cities. Surely the same argument can be applied to push workforce and management out to existing bank branches in local communities and enable that local workforce to carry out tasks on national functions such as mortgage services and business banking using the very same digital technology.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
On the point about the assessment made by Link under statute, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the three-mile radius that is being used by Link is totally inadequate when looking at rural areas such as mine in Pembrokeshire?
Graham Leadbitter
Yes, and I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. We are down to six bank branches in an area that takes two and a half hours to drive around. It is simply impossible for many people in those areas to access those services.
It is really interesting hearing about these rural-urban splits. My constituency is very much on the urban fringe, yet we are really struggling. We have been trying to get branches in Chertsey and Addlestone, and we had one in Cobham that recently closed down. This sounds like an issue that affects people everywhere, irrespective of rurality, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking forward this debate.
Graham Leadbitter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
After the election, the Government said they were working closely with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the UK, which is very welcome, and that the banking sector was committed to deliver those hubs by the end of this Parliament. But that is not far off just one for every two constituencies, and we need more and much better targets than that.
The banking and cash hubs in Hornsea, Withernsea and now Hedon in my constituency are fantastic and really work well, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lloyds is the only major bank that does not allow the deposit of cheques at post offices and cash and banking hubs, and that that is damaging to the most vulnerable in our society and to the bank’s customers. Will he join me in calling on Lloyds to look at that again, to ensure that people can deposit those cheques? Apps and other approaches do not always meet people’s needs, particularly those of elderly people.
Graham Leadbitter
Absolutely. I would consider those to be basic services that people should be able to access as close to their own community as they possibly can.
I was perplexed to read, in response to a written question from November last year, that the Government do not hold any bank closure data at all, despite the figures that I have quoted from Link. That is concerning when it is considered alongside the policy of 350 banking hubs, as neither the Government nor we who provide scrutiny can determine definitively how many closures have occurred and, by extension, how much damage requires to be mitigated.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
We successfully managed to apply for an interim banking hub in Kilsyth, which opened only four weeks ago. One of the grounds for having that hub was the closure of the Santander branch in Cumbernauld. There was a push then saying that the nearest alternative was the Santander branch in Kirkintilloch. Six months after the branch in Cumbernauld closed, notification was given that the Kirkintilloch branch would also close, with the nearest facility being in Glasgow, 25 miles away.
Graham Leadbitter
That gets to the heart of the matter. There is not an understanding by either the regulators or the banks themselves of the impacts that those closures have on communities that view themselves as being neighbours and part of a wider community, and the cumulative impact of that is significant.
We are talking about the rules. We know that the banks have withdrawn from our communities. My market towns of Fakenham and Aylsham have had all the banks go apart from one Nationwide. They say their answer to that is Link, and yet the rules seem to say that market towns, with that huge hinterland they also serve, are not sufficient to allow for banking services to be provided via hubs. Does the hon. Member agree that if those are the rules, those rules need to change?
Graham Leadbitter
Absolutely.
I turn to the inadequacies in the current framework, and I will try to make some progress. Current criteria include the number of remaining branches, the population size and the retail centre size, which is frankly ridiculous when some communities can be compact while others can have a narrow spread over a greater distance, often constrained by physical landscape and infrastructure features, such as rivers, railway lines, roads and, in some cases such as in my constituency, the foot of a mountain range. Transport distance, public transport links, population vulnerability and existing cash services are also all considered by Link. It is, however, the flexibility of those criteria that is the problem and the lack of cognisance of the wider geographic and population context, especially in areas such as the north of Scotland.
Friends in Kinross in Perthshire, while not in my constituency, noted that one criterion their community failed to meet was the retail centre requirements. They are sandwiched between a loch and a motorway, so the town can only realistically expand in two directions, resulting in smaller retail hubs rather than a bigger central area. Surely the answer is not reclaiming the loch or moving the motorway to get support for banking facilities.
Equally, the lack of progress on potential banking hubs in Grantown, Lossiemouth, Nairn and Aviemore in my constituency tells me that the current criteria are simply not good enough. Current population criteria ignore the needs of smaller hub towns in rural areas. Bus and train services to even relatively close alternatives still require significant journey planning and, indeed, cost for people who had previously been able to access facilities for free within walking distance. What may seem a relatively short distance can see a bus going off the most direct route into other communities, en route to the destination, and the return journey is not always available immediately on concluding banking transactions. In inclement weather, this process is even less appealing, and in mid-winter it is deeply concerning that elderly people may be waiting for buses in temperatures well below zero. That is very common through the winter months in the Cairngorms area where several of these communities are located.
The lack of banking facilities in Lossiemouth, for example, means that many businesses have to rely on services in Elgin, which is five to six miles away. Although that may not sound like a significant distance, travel times, paid parking and the impact of these repeat journeys to Elgin on smaller businesses’ workforces pose severe problems for Lossiemouth-based customers.
For the towns of Newtonmore, Kingussie and Aviemore, their last banks have all closed. The closest bank is in Inverness, which is up to an hour’s drive away across a distance of 30 to 45 miles. That is especially concerning as Aviemore is the UK’s principal ski resort, but locals and visitors alike do not have a bank to use. A banking hub would be a great way to boost the local economy, which is reliant on tourism and hospitality—traditionally a more cash reliant part of the economy.
For Grantown, a market town, its nearest non-Post Office banking service is now a 30-minute drive away in Forres, on a road with snow gates and snow poles that I can assure Members are necessary on numerous occasions over the winter. A banking hub would reduce journey times, costs and banking uncertainty for residents.
In Nairn, another busy town with significant tourism and a population of approaching 10,000 people, which is much higher in the summer with the tourist population added, there are no more banks in town. Alternatives are in Forres and in Inverness, but people cannot reasonably travel to and from those towns on public transport in under two hours, in addition to the time taken to transact their banking business.
Finally, I would like to point to an area not related to access to cash but to the other critical services offered by banks through banking hubs.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous with his time. I share his frustration that from the northern parts of Scotland to Southampton, on the south coast, the criteria is completely inadequate. In fact, in its assessment for the Bitterne application, Link included bus times that simply did not exist on any timetable anywhere. Does he agree with me that when banks have been removed, an assessment of access to cash is entirely the wrong answer to the question? Does he welcome, as I do, the Government’s review, and does he share my hope that what we will actually get to is an adequate, effective tool to assess the lack of banking services?
Graham Leadbitter
Absolutely. I am about to talk about the critical services offered by banks through banking hubs, which addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Community bankers located within banking hubs can offer much needed savings, loan and mortgage advice. Recently, a local community leader in Grantown made the strong point that basic business support, such as collecting change, depositing and withdrawing cash, transferring money between business accounts, making payments, managing cards, fraud support and money advice and even offering simple advice on how to open a business bank account, can be the difference between a business thriving and a business failing in a rural community.
Paying utility bills, depositing cheques and, for local charitable groups, even depositing the proceeds from a coffee morning or a raffle stall at a Highland Games, can make the difference between succeeding or struggling. The golden thread in all of this is that without banking hubs in the areas that need them, current policy is making it harder for people to buy their own homes, to run their own businesses and even to simply access cash in these areas.
I am pleased to acknowledge the Government’s announcement last week of an independent access to cash review, which will report in October 2026. I would have liked that work to have been done and concluded by now, but now it is in place I do not want to be churlish or grumpy about it. I know that those engaged in that review will be paying close attention to debates like this. I am sure that they will have noted the number of hon. Members from all political parties who are contributing to this debate and making their views and those of their communities known on this important issue. It is important that the regulators and the independent reviewer hear that breadth of opinion, because that will inform the response to the review.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to give one further example that I hope the reviewers will consider. Lloyds will this month close the last existing bank in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, leaving all of my constituents, whether urban or rural, without a proper bank. However, none of the villages are eligible for banking hubs because of the presence of building societies—sometimes part-time building societies —within the villages. Does he agree that while our building societies provide a fantastic service, they do not provide the range of services that my constituents, particularly those with small businesses, need that could be offered through a banking hub?
Graham Leadbitter
Absolutely. Again, that goes back to the point I made about people needing a business service and basic business advice without having to travel dozens of miles to access that. Setting up a business is hard at the best of times, and having simple access to somewhere that will answer simple questions is really important.
To conclude my 12-minute speech that has now lasted for 20 minutes, banking hubs would make a massive difference to communities like Lossiemouth, Grantown, Aviemore and Nairn, and to the many other communities that Members from across the House have mentioned in the debate. I trust that the Minister will recognise the firm but constructive approach that I and other Members have taken on this important issue.
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberI wish to open my contribution to the debate with a tribute to a young man from Pwllheli who was killed in a hideous two-car collision on the Porthmadog bypass just days before Christmas. While we await the inquest, I hope it is some comfort to his family that so many people in our home community want to see changes to the law as a memorial and mark of respect for the life of Mathew Hardy. He was 34 years old and the only child of Simon and Glenys. Mathew’s partner, Mari, is expecting a baby in three months’ time—too many lives shattered by irreplaceable loss. While many of us treat the right—the license—to drive a car with a familiarity verging on contempt, such tragedies remind us how dangerous vehicles can potentially be for all road users. Heaven knows, as Mathew’s father says, that people lose their gun licences, their guns and gun paraphernalia at any suggestion of police concern, but people keep their driving licences far, far too easily.
It is a sad fact that inexperienced young drivers remain disproportionately at risk of being killed or injured on the roads. We had the tragic case in my constituency of Harvey Owen who was a passenger in a car driven by a friend, along with two others, all of them teenagers, who lost their lives in 2023 when their car came off the A4085 near Llanfrothen and overturned in a ditch. Harvey’s mother Crystal—I am sure many Members will know her—is campaigning for graduated driving licences.
Northern Ireland has just committed to a full graduated driving licence system from October this year, which includes post-test restrictions that are designed to reduce exposure to high risk situations, such as carrying peer passengers. Evidence from other countries shows that graduated systems significantly reduce young driver casualties, and they save lives. Safer roads mean fewer accidents, and they also mean lower insurance premiums for young people, which is a message the Government should engage with. The Government should monitor Northern Ireland’s approach as a pilot for the rest of the UK.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
My colleague in the Scottish Government, Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, has indicated a strong willingness to engage with the UK Government and other relevant bodies to trial things such as graduated licences and other road safety measures. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is something the UK Government could proactively engage with to make positive progress across the home nations?
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful suggestion. It is interesting that we are all talking along the same lines.
I welcome that the road safety strategy includes consultation on proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences. For families who have lost loved ones to repeat drink-drive and drug-drive offenders, it is incomprehensible why those drivers do not lose their licences at the point of providing a positive test. At the very least, that should happen automatically at a second or further offence. Such a policy would ensure that there was swift preventive action when there is clear evidence of risk.
My last example is that of Amanda Peak, who lives in Brithdir, near Dolgellau. She lost both her sons, Arron, aged 10, and Ben, aged eight, and her husband was badly injured. The driver who inflicted this on the family was drunk and driving at speed. Amanda begs the Government to bring down the alcohol limit and to address sentencing. When the drunken driver was sentenced, Amanda was told that this man would not even have been sentenced to imprisonment if he had killed only one child. Imagine that—it took two children to be killed for this man to be sentenced to imprisonment. I urge the Minister to meet lobbyists and to meet families as well, because this might well be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a change that will benefit very many people’s lives.
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberAs a Treasury Minister, I have obviously been involved in discussions with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister’s team throughout the Budget process. We developed these policies collectively to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister said this morning that politics is about choices. The Chancellor chose not to disclose the improved tax outlook from the OBR when she addressed the country on 4 November; the Chancellor chose to overstate the challenges with the public finances; the Chancellor chose to withhold the more positive forecasts from her Cabinet colleagues; and the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer questions on her conduct in office. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s position is untenable and that she should now choose to resign?
The Chancellor chose on 4 November to be up front with people about the challenges we face. At the Budget, she chose to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.
(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Harriet Cross
I agree that we want to keep the workers that we have, and the skills and expertise that they have developed, in north-east Scotland because they are of huge value to north-east Scotland. They will not stay in north-east Scotland out of virtue but only if the jobs are there for them and it makes economic sense for the companies to keep them there. That is not what is happening at the moment, and we are losing a crucial asset to our energy transition at an extraordinary rate.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The loss of skills impacts investor confidence in the North sea. That investor confidence is directly linked to investor confidence in renewables, given the lack of availability of skills that will result. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to give an end date for this so-called temporary measure as soon as possible, and that that needs to be implemented as soon as practicably possible?
Harriet Cross
Exactly—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. On that point, I will skip forward a little bit to my first question to the Minister, which is when the Treasury will publish its consultation outcome on the future fiscal regime for the North sea, and whether the Government will wait until 2030 to implement that new regime, or whether they will implement it straightaway. Investment decisions worth billions are being put on hold waiting for that answer. They need to know a month, or ideally a week—not just a vague “in due course”.
Capital investment forecasts for the North sea have fallen by 84%, from over £14 billion to £2.3 billion for the period 2025 to 2029, and Offshore Energies UK calculates that £26 billion of economic value will be lost under Labour’s EPL extension. Some 90% of OEUK’s member companies are now seeking opportunities overseas, and Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce agrees, warning that the EPL is
“eroding investor confidence and driving capital to rival overseas regions.”
Shell’s finance chief has called for certainty and a “stable environment”, noting that the UK’s 78% tax rate is “larger than most” other countries and makes it difficult to have confidence in long-term investments.
Although Norway, which the Government love to use as a comparison, has a similar tax rate, the Government know that this is a false comparison, because Norway also offers full capital cost deductions. It refunds almost 72% of losses to companies and gives a 24% uplift on investment over four years. The result is that Norway attracts 3.8 times more investment than the UK into the same mature North sea basin. Norway’s North sea will see around £35 billion in exploration and production investment through to 2030; ours will see just £10 billion.
Dan Tomlinson
If the hon. Member would have preferred energy prices to stay at their pandemic levels, and money to continue to flow in from the EPL rather than more people throughout the country receiving lower energy bills, that is, of course, a view that she is welcome to hold.
As I was saying, the levy has raised more than £11 billion since its introduction, and is forecast to raise a further £11 billion by 2030. That revenue provides vital funding for our public services, creating sustainable jobs, strengthening our energy security and independence, and supporting the energy transition.
The Government are committed to giving the oil and gas industry long-term certainty and confidence in the fiscal regime. The energy security investment mechanism is the price floor within the EPL, and that gives the sector certainty that if oil and gas prices fall for a sustained period, the EPL will cease. That remains Government policy. The hon. Member asked whether the Government intended to de-link, but the Government policy is to stick with ESIM as it stands.
I know that Members have expressed concern about the approach to tax and how it affects investment in the oil and gas sector, but we have seen capital expenditure in the sector rise from around £4 billion in 2022 to around £6 billion last year. That is why we introduced pragmatic reforms to the levy at the autumn Budget 2024 and refrained from going further than abolishing the levy’s investment allowance, helping to support the sector’s competitiveness. I want to restate to the House today that the EPL will end no later than 31 March 2030.
Working with the sector and stakeholders, the Government published the oil and gas price mechanism consultation on 5 March to give long-term certainty on the future fiscal regime, developing an approach for how we respond to unusually high prices once the EPL ends. As the hon. Member knows, the consultation closed earlier this year. The Government are now hard at work analysing submissions and suggestions, and we will publish our response—I will not say “in due course”; I will say “shortly”. I know that the sector wants certainty from the Government as to what will follow on from the EPL. I hear that, and I am meeting members of the sector this week to hear it directly from businesses. I want this to happen as soon as it can, but I hope the hon. Member will understand that it is not quite in my gift unilaterally to announce the dates and the precise timetable on the Floor of the House.
I understand that there is a need for certainty, and the Government understand just how important that is for businesses and workers in the sector. I reassure the House that it is definitely not our intention to wait until the EPL is about to cease before bringing in new legislation to provide that certainty. I want us to bring forward the necessary legislation for the new mechanism as quickly as we reasonably can, to ensure a smooth and orderly transition for the sector. That is hugely important, and for as long as I am in this post I will do all I can to make sure that we can do that; I hear the points made by Members on both sides of the House.
The Government are already delivering a fair and orderly transition in the North sea. Across the country, we are driving growth and securing skilled jobs for future generations, and that is just as true in the North sea, where we have seen unprecedented levels of investment in offshore wind and where this Government have signed contracts for two first-of-a-kind carbon capture and storage clusters. This endeavour also includes Great British Energy, which, from its headquarters in Aberdeen, will create thousands of jobs across the country, invest up to £1 billion in clean energy supply chains and, as a publicly owned energy company, ensure that the clean energy revolution is built in Britain. Alongside that, the Office for Clean Energy Jobs will work to ensure that we have the skilled clean energy workforce to deliver those goals, so that this investment unlocks thousands of new jobs, kick-starts growth in communities and industrial towns, and secures a cleaner and more independent energy future for the UK.
Graham Leadbitter
A number of skilled jobs are going out of the North sea, and many of these workers will go to other countries—that was the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). That is not sustainable for the skills transfer into the offshore renewables sector, and it is denting investor confidence. There is a serious risk that the build-out of offshore renewables will not go fast enough if investor confidence disappears because of skills loss. It is hugely important that the EPL is addressed as quickly as possible to prevent that from continuing.
Dan Tomlinson
As I said just a few moments ago, 100,000 jobs are directly or indirectly linked to the work and activities in this sector, and it is vital that we support people with that transition. In the long-term, carbon capture and storage alone is expected to support 50,000 skilled jobs by 2050 as we move towards a clean energy transition. I am acutely aware—I have heard it from Opposition Members, and I am sure that I will hear it from my hon. Friends in a second—that we must get the balance right between the timing of phasing out and winding down production in the North sea, and ramping up the clean energy and good jobs that we need for the future. We have to do all we can to protect the sector.
(9 months ago)
Commons Chamber
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The issue of child poverty is incredibly important to this Government, and the child poverty taskforce will report later this year. I would like to add that this is an important personal issue for me: I grew up in family with very little money and I received free school meals as a child. For those children across the country who are living in poverty right now, I hope that they and their parents know that this Government are on their side and that we will do all we can to invest in our welfare system, in our economy and in ensuring that more people can get into work so that we can get poverty down, rather than have it rising as it did under the previous Government.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Hiking excise duty by 14% over the past two years was expected to raise £600 million for the Treasury in duty on spirits, but it has actually cost £600 million. With 70% of spirits produced in Scotland, this is nothing short of a tax on Scotland. The Chancellor has 77 days to back Scotch, support Scotland and sustain growth in this iconic and entrepreneurial sector. Will she therefore commit to reversing the Government’s attacks on a great Scottish success story by bringing down whisky duty in the Budget?
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The director of Family Business UK, Steve Rigby, has said that the single most important issue for the family businesses he represents is the retention of business property relief. That has come through loud and clear to me in recent weeks when I have been speaking to local businesses, both individually and collectively through organisations such as the Cairngorms Business Partnership and the local chamber of commerce. Other family businesses, which have never come together before and do not usually lobby their MPs, have come together too. They normally just get on with being hard-working and productive family businesses, but they have come together to lobby because they are so concerned about the impact of BPR.
To give a flavour of the family businesses in my constituency, we have some of the most iconic family businesses in the UK. Many will know Baxters from its food products, and Walker’s Shortbread food products can be found in pretty much every airport in the world. Glenfiddich, owned by William Grant & Sons, is another family business, and Johnstons of Elgin produces some of the finest cashmere products in the world. In Scotland as a whole, it alone employs 1,000 people.
Those businesses are not small fry. They put huge amounts of money and investment into those businesses every single year. I met a group of business owners last week who collectively represent 2,500 years of business ownership. They have a phenomenal story to tell. What is incredible about them is the stewardship of those businesses. They invest their time and energy. Family members get trained up and work in all aspects of the business, ready to take on the mantle of running it when it comes to them later in life. If the business was a limited liability partnership and you got rid of the business management of the business, it would not have any kind of inheritance tax to pay. Yet the only choice for family businesses operating on that scale, given the likely tax bill they will be hit with, is to either put away millions of pounds to cover the tax bill, which means they are not investing, or sell off large parts of the business. For manufacturing businesses, there is a very big chance that they will end up abroad rather than in the UK. They could be bought by a multinational or a conglomerate and the jobs would just be shipped abroad. That is not the way to grow the economy.
I was okay with the first couple of bits of the official Opposition’s motion, but they would have been better to have a laser-like focus on inheritance tax and national insurance contributions. Their inclusion of trying to stop a workers’ rights Bill is frankly ridiculous, and as for adding in the beer measures, it seems as though somebody must have been on a heady brew to come up with that notion. Those things make the motion unsupportable, but I hope the Minister is listening to what I have said about those aspects of the motion that I do support and have concerns about.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In Scotland, businesses are also battling with the business rates relief not being passed on in full by the SNP Scottish Government. Will the Member be putting pressure on his party in Scotland to pass on those reliefs in full, to help family businesses and businesses across our high streets in Scotland?
Graham Leadbitter
I hear what the hon. Member is saying. There are a number of reliefs in Scotland, and Scotland went further and quicker than the Conservatives did in government when it came to the small business bonus scheme that was in place, so I am not going to take any lessons about what we do with business rates. It is a different system; there are other things going on that make the mix different. Also, that is not the issue that businesses are raising with me.
The first and foremost issue, as has been indicated by Family Business UK, is inheritance tax. That is what is causing the most consternation. The businesses that I met last week were saying that their financial advisers—or their finance directors, if they are big enough to have them—are already advising them to set aside substantial amounts of money to cover off risk. These are businesses that have never had to value themselves in their lives. They are family businesses that work on a model of working with what they have and getting on with it. They have never had to place an inheritance value on their business. That is yet another headache for them—another bureaucratic maze for them to work their way through—that does not apply to LLPs, which is a very unfair situation. I do not understand why a Labour Government in particular are tackling family-owned businesses in this way and allowing shareholder-owned businesses or LLPs off the hook. That does not make sense to me.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke very well and, had her amendment been selected, I would certainly have gone for it. I am sorry that I cannot, but—
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the barriers to people accessing cash—not merely the location of banking hubs or facilities, but financial barriers. There may also be transport barriers to people getting to banking hubs in the first place. I hope to address that briefly in the remainder of my remarks.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Graham Leadbitter
On the point of geographic vulnerabilities, Aviemore, which many people will know as a major ski resort in Scotland, is pretty remote: it is on a major A-road, but it is in the middle of the Cairngorms. It has lost its last bank, and the nearest is Inverness, which is a 40-minute drive away—if someone has a car and it is not minus 10°, which is quite common in the middle of winter. Does the Minister agree that a degree of common sense needs to be applied by Link when looking at banking hubs—because that common sense is critical in making that assessment and it should not just be a tick-box exercise, as has been alluded to?
The hon. Gentleman’s point relates to transport links and the accessibility of banking hubs. It links well to the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), which is that a banking hub or banking service on its own might need further infrastructure around it to ensure that people can get there. I hope to address that briefly in just a moment.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington mentioned—by the end of this Parliament. Banking hubs allow people and businesses to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. Importantly, they also contain rooms where customers can see community bankers to carry out wider banking services, such as registering a bereavement or getting help with changing a PIN. The Government are committed to working with the industry to ensure that banking hubs meet customers’ needs.
Following rules laid out for the Financial Conduct Authority, the roll-out of banking hubs is determined in accordance with legislation. When a bank announces the closure of a branch or a material change of cash access, an assessment will be carried out by Link, which we have heard hon. Members refer to today and is the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network. That is an impartial assessment of a community’s access-to-cash needs. Where Link recommends a banking hub, Cash Access UK, a not-for-profit company funded by major UK banks, will provide it. The assessments take into account criteria such as population size, the number of small businesses, and levels of vulnerability. They also consider the distance to the nearest bank branch and the cost and travel time to get there on public transport. Importantly, where the announcement of a bank closure triggers an assessment, the branch cannot close until recommended services have been installed. Any member of the public—including Members of this House—can request an access-to-cash review directly, through the Link website.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington and others have put on record their concerns about the criteria that Link uses to make the assessments. Those concerns are on record through this debate. Any decisions on changes to Link’s assessment criteria are a matter for Link, the financial services sector and the FCA, which oversees the access-to-cash regime. The FCA is required by law to keep its rules under review. It monitors the impact of those rules on an ongoing basis to ensure that they deliver the right outcomes for businesses and consumers.
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Having participated in the previous debate on the subject in the main Chamber, I welcome the different tone from Government Back Benchers. They will get much further with their constituents by reflecting their concerns than by reading out Whips’ points in these debates.
One issue that I want to highlight, because it goes against some suggestions that have been made in relation to so-called land banking, is that when agricultural land is currently sold in my constituency, it is acquired by private equity firms that want to go down the route of industrial tree planting or solar farm production. If we require farms to be sold to meet inheritance tax demands, they will not be sold to new family farmers or new entrants; they will be sold to private equity firms that want not to produce food on our land, but to maximise tax benefits such as carbon offset and other environmental tax benefits. In addition, they do not employ anyone within the constituency—there is no ongoing employment.
Farming does not just produce food and create generational and environmental benefits; it is at the heart of the economy. I have seen that directly: to counter the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak in my constituency, virtually every hoofed animal was destroyed. When farming closed down, the economy closed down. Everybody in the constituency lost out. People were not in the shops, were not buying cars and were not using other businesses. Farming is not just about all the things we have heard about today; it is right at the heart of the economy.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Changes to inheritance tax can be made that will prevent people from gaming the system and buying up land to avoid tax. That can be done without an impact on existing farming businesses. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for the Government not to have even considered such changes in their previous responses is not only unacceptable, but a dereliction when it comes to food security and national security?
What will be unacceptable is if the Minister stands up at the end of this debate and gives the same response that he has given in previous debates, having heard the points that his own colleagues have put forward about how damaging and ill thought through this policy proposal has been. I am looking for a change in tone not just from Government Back Benchers, but from the Minister.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I very much agree. That is why fiscal stability and economic responsibility are at the heart of this Labour Government and the Chancellor’s agenda. Members on the Opposition Benches may want to pay attention to that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
There is no point beating around the bush: the Chancellor has just lost over £9.9 billion of headroom, and stands on the cusp of breaking her own fiscal rules. She said last year that she would not come back for more tax rises. Will the Chief Secretary be honest and admit, just as the former Bank of England rate setter Martin Weale said today, that this leaves only the option of more austerity? Will he level with people about when and where the next round of cuts will fall?
As I said, the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. The only reliable sources on future financing will be the OBR forecast on 26 March, the conclusion of the spending review in June, and the Budget, which the Chancellor will present in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman mentioned austerity, but I remind him that this Labour Government have given the Scottish Parliament the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution. He should be grateful for that.