Banking Hubs
Debate between Graham Leadbitter and Jim Shannon(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
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.
Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing
Debate between Graham Leadbitter and Jim Shannon(5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy pricing for consumers with factored energy arrangements.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am pleased to have secured this debate on a systemic regulatory failure that is quietly draining the bank accounts of residents across Scotland and the wider UK. We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, yet large numbers of domestic residents are being charged inflated business electricity tariffs for the essential communal services that keep their buildings safe and functional.
In a nutshell, the issue is that in many residential developments, services such as stairwell lighting, fire alarms, lifts and door entry systems are powered via shared electricity meters. Despite that electricity being used entirely for domestic living, residents are routinely charged business energy rates. It is not a niche issue; it is a systemic failure driven by outdated rules and weak enforcement.
The financial harm to our constituents is stark. A typical communal supply, using around 1,000 kWh per year, would cost roughly £380 on a fixed domestic tariff. Under the frequently used standard variable business tariffs, that same usage can rise to around £1,465, an excess cost of approximately £1,100 per meter every year. Across a modest development of 75 flats, it can add around £12,000 annually to residents’ collective bills.
What makes that particularly galling is that many residents are entirely unaware of how their communal electricity is billed. They may not know whether it is on a separate meter, how many accounts are involved, or whether it is charged at domestic or business rates. The costs are simply absorbed into factoring charges, leaving consumers unaware of both the issue and their rights—unaware when they are being roundly fleeced for someone else’s failure to either act properly or correctly inform them. The root cause of the issue is simple: it is a regulatory mismatch. The problem sits at the intersection of Ofgem regulation, supplier interpretation and third party management structures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. He and I spoke beforehand, but he might not be aware that consumers with factored arrangements in Northern Ireland were historically vulnerable to high, unregulated prices, similar to consumers in GB, but the Northern Ireland Assembly moved to correct that vulnerability. Does he agree that, UK-wide, those in communal schemes must have protection from gouging and be able to access better priced energy?
Graham Leadbitter
That is absolutely the case. To take Scotland as an example, consumers have a route to address complaints about this issue through the regulation of factors, but it is complex and cumbersome. There should be a simpler way to do it through the energy regulator, as I will touch on later in my speech.
Many communal meters are correctly classed as profile class 01, a domestic designation based on usage. However, where a property factor, managing agent or company holds the contract, suppliers often automatically apply the business tariff.
Support for the Scotch Whisky Industry
Debate between Graham Leadbitter and Jim Shannon(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Scotch whisky industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Today I seek to address the critical role of the Scotch whisky industry in the UK economy and to outline the essential support that it requires from the UK Government.
Scotch whisky is more than just a drink; it is a cultural and economic asset that is enjoyed around the world. We all share the desire to ensure that it is enjoyed responsibly and sustainably for generations to come. Each bottle shipped from Scotland to every corner of the world leaves behind a measurable impact on our economy. The numbers speak for themselves. The industry provides £7.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy. It supports 41,000 jobs across Scotland and more than 25,000 more jobs across the UK. Scotch whisky accounts for 74% of Scottish food and drink exports and 22% of UK food and drink exports.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is right to highlight the importance of Scotch whisky in his constituency. In my constituency, the Hinch distillery is becoming a globally recognised, award-winning whiskey brand. These home distilleries provide for each and every person’s constituency, including the hon. Gentleman’s, mine and others. They grow the local economy and should receive support to further their success from the Government here at Westminster.
Graham Leadbitter
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I enjoy a dram now and again as well.
Energy Rebates: Highlands and Islands
Debate between Graham Leadbitter and Jim Shannon(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I recall the two Members to whom he referred, including a former colleague, and their campaigns. In the previous debate, I also referred to the 26.5% of people in fuel poverty in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman see a methodology to get help with an energy rebate based on temperature, or would he base it on the cost, where it is higher for fuel, in the circumstances that he is referring to?
Graham Leadbitter
The basic issue relates to the regional inequity, which has to do with the regulation of the system and of how distribution charges are applied and basic unit prices charged. Those are generally much higher. It is more than just the temperature issue; it is about the whole structure of the energy system.
Fuel poverty rates in our region are stark: 39.8% of households in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, 32.9% in the highlands and 31.6% in Moray experience fuel poverty. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar alone, 24.3% of households face extreme fuel poverty, a rate that is unmatched across the UK.
The highland energy rebate would represent a fair solution. It would be an actionable, just and necessary response to the challenges. The rebate would provide essential financial relief to those burdened by the high cost of energy. Such a measure would help to alleviate the financial pressure on families and individuals who already endure the highest levels of fuel poverty in the UK. Beyond the immediate household impact, a rebate would boost the local economy and reinforce the economic stability of the highlands and islands. By lessening the financial burden of energy costs, we can empower residents, enabling greater participation in our communities and stimulating local economic activity.
What can we learn from the existing frameworks? Critics may argue that implementing such a rebate is complex or costly, but let me be blunt: people who live in fuel poverty and face the choice of heating or eating on a day-to-day basis have a day-to-day existence that is also complex and costly.
Similar rebate frameworks exist not only in various countries across Europe—Norway and Denmark, for example—but here in the UK. The hydro benefit replacement scheme was well intentioned, but it fell short of supporting our vulnerable consumers adequately. In 2022, a brief review noted that the scheme
“does not…provide an efficient or effective way of”
supporting
“vulnerable consumers”.
Given the additional £49 million paid by highlands and islands energy consumers over the past three years, our communities cannot afford continued shortfalls in targeted support. We deserve a scheme that is equitable, modern and regionally tailored. The recently proposed household energy rebate of £10,000 over 10 years for those living near new energy infrastructure underlines the precedent for providing regional support. A highland energy rebate would take us a step further, applying it to areas where renewable energy infrastructure already exists, and supporting the nation.
In conclusion, this is a matter of fairness, equity and regional support. The highlands and islands play a pivotal role in the UK’s clean energy production, yet we bear the highest costs. The highland energy rebate would be an acknowledgment of the contributions of our communities and would ensure a share in the benefits of the energy they help create. I urge everyone here today to support this campaign for a fairer energy system and for economic justice for the highlands and islands, and I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide an assurance that the new Government will take this matter seriously and act quickly to address the inequalities in our energy system and lift people out of fuel poverty.