Royal Bank of Scotland

Debate between Guto Bebb and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I associate myself with his final comments about RBS.

This is an important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on securing it. I put my name to the motion simply because I feel that this issue is worthy of debate in the Chamber. I am not ideologically opposed to seeing banks in private ownership—I am probably guilty of being ideologically of the view that banks should be in private hands—but it is important that we consider this issue in depth and in the round. It is important that we look at the track record of RBS and what we want from it, to ensure that we make the right decision.

In the context of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) was quite brave to argue the case for RBS going straight into private hands at this point in time. Unfortunately, I do not share his confidence in the regulator, having spent three or four hours with the Financial Conduct Authority again this week. RBS still has a huge credibility gap with the general public and, more importantly, with the small business community. That gap needs to be addressed before we can entrust RBS to act in a manner similar to the way it acted in the past. I would be delighted to stand here today and say that the culture in RBS had changed completely. I am utterly convinced that within RBS there are individuals who are making huge strides to change its culture, but am I convinced that all the bad eggs have been removed? Am I convinced that all possibility of actions that are detrimental to small businesses within RBS has been removed? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that RBS made mistakes. It is still making mistakes, while largely in public ownership, in relation to funding for small businesses and branch closures. Does he not think that before it is returned to the private sector, if that is going to happen, it has to prove that it can run itself competently in the interests of its customers?

[Guto Bebb]

I would certainly say there is a need to look in detail at the way RBS is performing. There are questions still to be asked about the corporate culture within RBS and questions raised by the Banking Commission need to be looked at.

It is important to state that this is not a left-right political argument. There are think-tanks on the right that think we should look again at the UK banking model. There was strong agreement when my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) stated that the loss of the mutual in the 90s was a mistake for the financial structure of the UK. This is not a left-right argument; it is about trying to get things right and ensuring that, as a result of intervention in the market that we did not want to make, we deliver a better banking system. It is important to state that the reason for intervention in the market was much wider than making a profit for the taxpayer: it was to ensure the UK economy was protected at a very difficult time.

Legal aid

Debate between Guto Bebb and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Riordan, and to be opposite the Solicitor-General. It has been a privilege to listen to so many well-informed speakers from both sides. Although it invidious to pick out people, I will do so by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) showed their decades of experience in dealing with such matters. I hope that the Minister will listen to them and to other contributions that are made during the consultation process, and realise that mistakes have been made in the proposals to cut legal aid.

I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is standing down as chair of the all-party group on legal aid, for her unrivalled record in pursuing such matters and for securing the debate today. Like her, I will mention my not-for-profit agencies. For the past 20 years, I have had the pleasure of serving on the management committee of Hammersmith and Fulham community law centre, which does a fantastic job. Threshold housing advice and the Shepherds Bush advice centre were also excellent but were closed this year because of the withdrawal of local authority funding. The law centre, too, has lost all its local authority funding and is therefore under threat. I am talking about a pattern that is all too familiar.

The practitioners of legal aid, many of whom are here today, will be among the most astute and trenchant critics of all Governments when it comes to supporting the service. Even they would concede that Labour Governments, over the 60 years since the service was introduced, have—perhaps by taking two steps forward and one step back at times—increased the scope and eligibility of legal aid. Having said that, and, to save the legs of any Members on the Government Benches who want to stand up and read the Whips’ briefing about what we would cut, I shall add, “Yes, we were in a period of retrenchment and yes, there would have been cuts.”

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not give way because there is only a short time left. There would have been cuts under a Labour Government. In some respects, we would have made cuts to private family law, although we should look again at the definition of domestic violence, as the hon. Member for South Swindon said. We would, I think, have taken a much more forensic look at criminal legal aid, which has just been brushed over. However, we would not have made cuts to social welfare legal aid. I pay tribute here to Lord Bach who, over a period of years as Minister, supported, defended and spoke out for social welfare law, and, as a Government, we did a very good job in protecting it and we would have gone on protecting it. Given the short time that we have to debate this subject, I shall devote my remaining comments to that area and follow the lead given by Members speaking today.

The briefing from the citizens advice bureau states that

“proposals to exclude most social welfare law issues from scope will mean over half a million fewer people getting help every year”.

That is the first statistic. What types of people are we talking about? Many examples of them have been cited this morning, including parents going to special educational needs tribunals; tenants facing problems of harassment or disrepair; disabled people whose welfare benefits have been cut; and people who have been unfairly dismissed. In the vision section—I am sure that no irony was intended—of the business plan for the Department, it says the aim of the programmes is to have a legal aid system

“that supports those at greatest risk, not those who are most litigious.”

Rather than being the “most litigious”, I see such people as being the most vulnerable in society.

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement to the House on 15 November, he talked about the back-to-basics principle of the Green Paper. This is very basic indeed. A truer account was given in the Sunday Telegraph the day before—if one wants the fullest account of Government policy, one should always look in the papers the day before the statement is made to the House. The Sunday Telegraph, which is no great friend of legal aid, said:

“Legal Aid for civil cases will all but disappear.”

I do not think that that is an exaggeration. There are to be cuts of 23% in the Ministry of Justice, which is one of the highest cuts of any Department, and a cut of a third in the civil legal aid budget and a 42% projected fall in the income of legal aid practitioners. The impact assessment that goes with the Green Paper says that there will be a cut of up to 92% in the legal aid funding for the not-for-profit sector.

How can the Minister defend, or explain, cuts of that order, which effectively wipe out the not-for-profit sector? Effectively, there will be a 15% cut in the CAB’s funding. For law centres, there could be a cut of up to 50%. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out, the financial inclusion fund faces an uncertain future. What is the future of that fund in the new financial year, because it alone provides 10% of CAB funding? Moreover, it was praised by the National Audit Office very recently as providing good value for money and a high-quality service.

I do not have time to go through each area of practice. I am very grateful—and I am sure that the Minister is—for the briefings that have been provided by Shelter on housing, the Special Educational Consortium and many others because they highlight the effect that these cuts will have on issues such as disrepair, allocations and the challenging of rogue landlords. The SEC’s briefing gets rid of the idea that it is a litigious organisation or that it is intent on making mischief and going to court for no reason. It states that

“most parents win their appeals (82%) once they reach the Tribunal itself, and in 30% of registered appeals the local authority concedes before the case reaches Tribunal stage.”

That is very much the case as regards clinical negligence as well. We must look at the defendants in many of these cases and consider why they are fighting them. A highly respected practice of clinical negligence solicitors told me that once legal aid is withdrawn, it will not be economic for it to take cases in which damages will be less than £100,000.

In the few moments that I have left, let me run through a few of the practical problems that the Government have not addressed when they put forward their glib response to making cuts in this area of civil legal aid. Some 10 problems have occurred to me over the course of 10 minutes. Will other agencies pick up the cases that will no longer be covered by legal aid? The Government say that the Child Poverty Action Group, Age UK, Shelter and the Disability Alliance will, but have they been approached and what have they said in response? We have been told about other funding streams. I began my remarks by talking about what had happened in my own constituency and that picture is repeated all over the country. Other funding streams have already been cut. Law centres are surviving on funding from the Legal Services Commission, because local authority funding has already been cut.

Several Members have explained that such matters are complex and often inter-related. A debt problem often arises because there has been a benefit or employment problem. Tackling one but not the other is not an option. What about the economic viability of the not-for-profit sector? Is it feasible for the Government to make swingeing cuts but cherrypick the parts that will remain? I do not believe that it is, or that many law centres or private firms will survive under such a situation.

The issues of self-representation have been raised by Ministers in regard to this matter. In response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Minister with responsibility for legal aid said:

“In most cases individuals will be able to”—

this is talking about welfare benefits—

“prepare their appeal to the First-Tier (Social Security and Child Support) Tribunal without formal legal assistance.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 115W.]

I am afraid that the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land, and their own figures do not support that claim. Some 40% of cases going to incapacity benefit appeals are successful with no representation and 67% are successful with representation. One of the solicitors firms that briefed us in preparation for this debate said that it had an 82% success rate in challenging employment support allowance cases, as against a national average of 40% where there is no representations.

The gateway has been mentioned. There is nothing wrong with telephone advice, but it cannot take the place of advice that is provided in person. With telephone advice, documents cannot be shown and people who have learning or language difficulties simply cannot use the telephone for that service.

Vulnerable people are not considered in this Green Paper. Unlike in the Bradley report in 2009, which dealt with people with learning difficulties and mental health difficulties in the criminal law system, no regard seems to have been given to those people in the Green Paper. Little regard has been given to the equality impact assessment, as demonstrated by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. The eligibility criteria are so restrictive that very few people will get any access to free advice in this sector at all. The cost issues have also been raised, including the fact that this change is, in effect, a false economy that will cost more in the long run than it saves.

Another point that has not been raised yet is the fact that courts and tribunals will be clogged by litigants appearing in person and legal practitioners—the Solicitor-General was a legal practitioner for many more years than I was—will realise that this change will be a nightmare for the judicial and court system.

Those are only a few of the issues that need to be raised. I hope that the Solicitor-General can respond to many of those points and if he cannot do so, I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North and to other Members who have taken part in this debate.

This is only the beginning of the debate on legal aid; the debate will continue until the end of the consultation period, in the first instance. However, I hope that the Government realise that there are serious issues that have not been properly addressed in the Green Paper and they need to be addressed if we are to have a continuing civil legal aid system in this country.