Bank Closures and Banking Hubs
Ian Lavery Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of banking facilities to local communities and expresses concern over the precipitous decline over the past 40 years; notes the change to banking habits through online services; further recognises that, for vulnerable people, face-to-face banking is a vital service and a reduction of branches risks significant financial exclusion; further notes the impact of a loss of physical banking on small businesses through lost productivity and lost footfall; also notes the innovative nature of banking hubs as a solution to a loss of high street banking, but recognises that Financial Conduct Authority rules for their recommendation are too inflexible; and calls on the Government to instigate a review into the impact on communities of bank branch loss and a change to the regulations to ensure communities have appropriate access to banking facilities.
On 26 February, I held a debate in Westminster Hall on high street banking and bank closures. Despite the fact that it was only a 30-minute debate, it was incredibly well attended. Such was the demand for a debate on the issues facing almost every community and constituency that, at its conclusion, I was urged to apply for a Backbench Business debate—so here we are this afternoon. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee for granting such an important debate and to all the Members across the House who co-signed my application, in particular the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who co-sponsored it.
This debate, like the previous one, is timely. There has been a precipitous decline in banking provision in the UK over a period of four decades. It has been partially driven by the rapid advances in technology, which have seen a huge uptake of internet banking, but we should not kid ourselves—it has also been driven by a desire from banks still raking in enormous profits to centralise and cut costs, with no regard for the communities they purport to serve.
Communities are being sacrificed at the altar of greed, at the behest of banks that no longer see the services they provide as profitable, and as is so often the case, the elderly, the disabled and the poor, who either cannot cope with computers or cannot afford expensive broadband, are the ones who have been hit the hardest. Moreover, the closures have further eroded local economies, with fewer visits to the high street being made and local businesses having additional costs linked to such practicalities as making cash deposits.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the issues caused for businesses. There are also significant issues for charities. In my constituency, many local charities and community groups receive cash donations and struggle to find a place to bank them. Does he agree that this is an issue for charities, just as much as it is for local businesses?
Ian Lavery
That is a very valid point. My hon. Friend is right: when we look at who suffers as a consequence of these decisions, charities are way up there.
The regulatory framework in place to protect communities has found itself totally lacking, and that has been the case for some time. That is the reason for this debate. My predecessor for the old Wansbeck seat, Denis Murphy, campaigned vigorously alongside local people against the closure of bank branches in both Newbiggin-by-the-Sea and Guide Post, but despite overwhelming public support, the banks closed regardless. Both those communities have been without their own banks for more than 25 years. Since 2013, the Financial Conduct Authority has been tasked with regulating banking services, including branch closures.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. Last month, the well-used Chiswick post office in my constituency closed without notice. I met Post Office Ltd yesterday, and it assured me that a service would be restored shortly. Does he agree that this volatility and uncertainty in the market is damaging to both local communities and the reputation of financial institutions?
Ian Lavery
That is massively important. People are told that they can rely on post offices to replace the banks. The vast majority of post offices in our communities are now run by a single person and are not making a profit. They can easily just withdraw the services—it does happen, and it has happened lots of times in my career—leaving the communities without anything whatsoever. That is a really important point, which I will probably touch on later.
In my experience of dealing with branch closures in my constituency, the FCA’s powers to force the banking industry to rectify the consequential difficulties are totally and utterly inadequate.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The fact that there are so many Members in the House this afternoon underlines that this is a very big problem that crosses party political boundaries and all kinds of constituencies. Harwich, Brightlingsea, Manningtree and other places in my constituency are losing their banking facilities. The Government are spending money on trying to revive Harwich high street, but neither the previous Government nor this Government have done anything to secure the banking facilities that are the lifeblood of a high street. I really welcome this debate. I am not sure that post offices are the answer. I think we need to make sure there is a proper bank on every high street.
Ian Lavery
I do agree with that. These problems are happening across communities, regardless of whether we are red, blue, green or yellow—it is happening on every high street. Many of them have lost their banks—they are gone—and it cannot be allowed to continue.
Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the FCA can require banks to consult interested parties to consider the effects of closures and can ask the private sector cash machine operator Link to assess the consequences of closures and to recommend where alternatives such as shared banking hub facilities should be created to fill the gaps.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He mentioned that this problem is happening in every high street across the country, and that is certainly the case in my constituency, where we have seen the almost wholesale withdrawal of banks in West Norwood, Dulwich and Brixton—across the piece, they are closing. Where they close, the banks often say, “We’ll make our services available in a banking hub in the local library,” for example. The service is then poorly advertised and publicised and is not particularly convenient. The banks come along a few months later and say, “We’re closing it because of a lack of demand.” Does he agree that the banks are taking a cynical approach and are failing to provide an adequate service to our constituents?
Ian Lavery
Of course it is a cynical approach. The banks do not want to be on the high street. They do not want to be supporting local communities—the very same communities that have supported the banks through the darkest of times. That is the reality, and that is why this debate is so important. We need more regulation to support people in their communities.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. When the last bank in town closes in communities such as Tenbury Wells and Pershore, it is a cumbersome process for them to qualify for a banking hub. He mentioned the role of the regulator. Does he agree that when the last bank in town closes, a banking hub ought to be provided automatically?
Ian Lavery
There is definitely room for discussion in that respect. We have got to make sure that people have financial services on the high street. It is pretty simple.
Link assesses the consequences of bank closures, but its objectives are directed by the FCA requirements, and basically, it can only assess a community based on access to cash—nothing else. No other social discussions take place; it is just based on access to cash.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Eltham, our last bank has closed, but because we still have a Nationwide in the town centre, the banks will not consider the option of a banking hub. That needs to change. Does he agree that we need a review of the criteria, so that we can have a chance of getting the banks at least to co-operate in a banking hub? They should not rely on Nationwide.
Ian Lavery
I of course agree: the criteria laid down by the Government, the banks, the FCA and Link need to be utterly overhauled to represent people in our communities. I will come on to some of the points that my hon. Friend raises.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
All of us in this House share the concern that the disabled and the vulnerable are losing access not just to cash, but to services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time we asked the Government to ensure that the FCA reviews its guidelines on this?
Ian Lavery
My ask will be a bit stronger than that. I might get my backside kicked, but hey, it will not be the first time. I will ask the Government to insist on legislation that changes the structures to what we are all crying out for. It will not cost the Government a ha’penny to provide services to the people who actually need them.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The number of banks that have left my constituency has driven me mad: in the 336 square miles of Mid Buckinghamshire, only one high street bank is left standing. One of the most absurd things that I have heard multiple banks say over the years is: “Oh, but there’s a bank just a few miles away.” That might be technically true on Google Maps, but to pick somewhere close to my constituency entirely at random—I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in her place—in High Wycombe it takes an enormous amount of time compared with how it looks on Google Maps to get into the town centre and back again. If one bit of the criteria needs to change, it is that banks should not be able just to say, “Oh, there’s a bank a few miles away.” They need to look at the time it takes in real life to get from a village to a nearby town.
Ian Lavery
It feels really strange to agree with so many Conservative Members—it does not make me terribly comfortable, but it shows the power of the argument and, importantly, the support that it has across the House, which is relatively rare. The number of interventions that I have taken has meant that lots of the points in my speech have already been made. I will try to be as quick as possible.
Link does a decent job under the criteria that have been set, which really need to be changed. Link can pause a bank closure but cannot stop one, or set its own timetable for the establishment of banking hubs. Moreover, there is no provision for the FCA to initiate retrospective assessments of the need for banking hubs in areas where banks have left the high street, resulting in banking deserts, many years ago, prior to the 2023 Act.
The Government simply must take a fresh look at this issue and bring forward the necessary legislation to force the banking industry to fulfil its social responsibilities. The customers and communities from whom they have extracted so much profit over the years deserve nothing less. We should not forget that these are the very same banks and financial institutions that we had to bail out in 2008-09 because of their reckless pursuit of ever-increasing profits. They then made fortunes through the quantitative easing that the Bank of England initiated to save the economy after the crash that they caused. They are now abandoning the very taxpayers who bailed them out.
As I mentioned, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of banks on our high streets. In 1986 there were 21,643 bank and building society branches in the UK; by 2024, around 6,800 were left. Clearly, the switch to online banking has had an impact, but even those of us who use online banking sometimes need the certainty that a branch offers. The House of Lords April 2025 report “Closure of bank branches: Impact on rural communities” quotes Sarah Coles, a senior personal finance analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown:
“The closure of bank branches is a vicious circle. The more that close, the more people move online, so there are fewer people relying on high street branches, so more of them close. The pandemic picked up the pace around this ever-decreasing circle, closing more branches temporarily and causing online banking to spike.”
The banks say that fewer people are using branches. If a high street branch closes, people cannot use it, as it is not there any more. Does that not result in an automatic reduction in usage? This is not rocket science. It is a vicious circle, which is why we need change from the Government.
Northumberland, my home county, has lost more than half of its bank branches since 2015. In my constituency of Blyth and Ashington, the large villages have been left without high street banks for more than a quarter of a decade. Blyth, Northumberland’s largest town, will be left without a high street bank in a few months’ time, though a building society will remain—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford).
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The hon. Member has been very generous. He mentions building societies, and the Nationwide problem was mentioned. In Harpenden, the hard work of local campaigners has managed to secure a banking hub, despite our having a Nationwide. Does he agree that local communities need access to a full range of banking services that building societies do not provide, and will he join me in thanking Harpenden town council and especially Derek French, who has campaigned on this issue locally and nationally? Perhaps this could be an example that could help other towns to find out how they could get a banking hub despite having a Nationwide.
Ian Lavery
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; I will cover some of those points.
I mentioned Blyth, the biggest town in my constituency. The third largest town in Northumberland, Bedlington, saw its last branch close just last month. From August in my constituency, only Ashington, the county’s third largest town, will have a high street bank, but many will wonder how long that will last. Who is affected by these bank closures? Like any change of this nature, is it not the most vulnerable who find it the most difficult? The FCA’s research in 2019 set out how problematic the requirement to travel bigger distances for banking services was for older people, and provided evidence for the slow uptake of online banking services by older people.
Only last week, my office was contacted by an elderly gentleman from Guide Post. His local bank closed in 2000. He moved to the branch in Bedlington, a few miles away, where he stayed for nigh on 25 years before that closed. Then he moved to the one in Blyth, a few miles further away; that branch is now to be closed, as I mentioned earlier. He is unable to access internet banking, he does not have any family, and he is unable to travel any further distances, whether by using basic transport services or otherwise.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As others have said, the hon. Member has been very generous. His speech is making me think about vulnerable customers, and access to responsible credit for them. Just a couple of weeks ago, the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking had a roundtable. Actually, online banking services do not help those really vulnerable people, where there is a sense of shame in potentially needing small amounts of help and support. Does he agree that that is something else that we, and the Government, need to consider?
Ian Lavery
I fully agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is up to us, in this place, to speak up for those vulnerable people.
We know that the banks profit and make savings from branch closures. In January 2020, a House of Commons Library briefing pointed to the major banks enjoying a 6% decrease in overhead costs through branch closures. In 2024, HSBC reported the highest net profit among the largest UK banks, reaching just under £20 billion; Barclays followed, with around £6.36 billion; and NatWest’s net profit was approximately £4.8 billion. The big four UK banks—Barclays, NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC—are estimated to have made a combined £44.7 billion in profit. They are not hard up, you know —they really are not hard up. That is why it is important that we, as elected representatives, press that point home to Government.
The FCA’s current powers around bank closures have been mentioned two or three times already, and they go to the heart of the issue. Unfortunately, the banks are a law unto themselves. The FCA has no statutory powers to prevent bank closures. It can only seek to influence such decisions through its guidance notes. On branch closures, the FCA guidance requires banks to assess how closures will affect customers, especially those with vulnerabilities, using data on usage trends; consider alternative solutions to customers’ needs, such as free ATMs, post offices and banking hubs; and ensure that customers are given clear information and that they are not misled. Although the FCA cannot stop closures, it can require pauses in branch closures if it is not satisfied that the important matters that I have just mentioned have been considered adequately. Given everything we are talking about, I think that approach fails. Legislative changes are needed to ensure there is much more flexibility in that guidance.
Link is a not-for-profit company that is charged with making access to cash available, largely through ATMs. It can charge for using its ATMs and is allowed to charge more in rural areas. Prior to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the major banks ran a voluntary assessment scheme using Link to carry out research into the effects of planned branch closures. The Act made the Link assessments mandatory but did not significantly widen their scope. The Link assessments analyse the impact of branch closures in terms of access to cash, and outline existing and recommended new alternatives, such as banking hubs.
In Blyth, which is Northumberland’s largest town, the banks ran out of cash over a bank holiday weekend not many weeks ago. Blyth—it is a massive place—did not have any cash. Can you imagine that? It did not have any cash whatsoever simply because the cash machines ran out and the Morrisons supermarket cash machines were inside the closed store. An hon. Member raised the point about having different cash machines in different places, but if people rely on a supermarket for access to cash, perhaps as a last resort, and it closes at 7pm or 8pm, then they do not have any access to cash.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. To expand on his comment about supermarkets, in Wetherby in my constituency, Morrisons has the only cashpoints and they are outside, but they had run out of cash by Saturday lunch time
Ian Lavery
That sounds like the same sort of situation as the one we had in Blyth. There were cash machines outside and inside, but the cash machines outside ran out of cash. There were people knocking on the shop windows asking the people who were filling the shelves to get some money for them from the cash machines inside—how ludicrous is that? How ridiculous!
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising. There is also an issue with cash machines inside shops that may be open for longer, but they are stocked from the shop by the cash received in the premises. There can be cash machines in a shop that have no cash in them, but Link has to take them into account when assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community.
Ian Lavery
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I like bringing school kids into Parliament. Down in one of the corridors there is an ATM that says “Free cash”, and I tell all the kids, “That’s what you get if you are an MP—you can get as much cash as you want from here—it’s free, it’s free!” [Laughter.] And they all ask me if I can get them some cash before they go to their mams. Free cash? There are ATMs where people have to pay a huge percentage to get their own money. That is an issue that I will cover very shortly.
My own experience of dealing with Link saw me almost guaranteed that a banking hub would be delivered in Bedlington just before the election, but on receiving the assessment, no such facility was proposed and instead worried locals were asked to travel to nearby Cramlington to conduct their financial affairs. That is not acceptable. It is correct to say that banking hubs are an innovative solution for high streets left without banking facilities, but Link’s briefing note on banking hubs published on 2 June 2025 says:
“Banking hubs are shared services that enable customers of any of the major high street banks to access basic banking services and advice from community bankers. Hubs are delivered by a bank-owned company called Cash Access UK, and are currently operated by the Post Office.”
The Government have stated that they expect 350 banking hubs to be open by the end of this Parliament. We are well on-track to surpass that figure. Link has already identified a need for 226 banking hubs across the UK, and a similar number of other cash services, such as new deposit services. Over 150 banking hubs are already operational. There is no doubt that that is progress, but we need far more to provide the service that our constituents deserve. The figure of 350 banking hubs might sound impressive, but there are 650 constituencies represented in Parliament. In my constituency alone, banking hubs should be at the heart of the high streets in Ashington, Bedlington, Blyth, Guidepost and Newbiggin- by-the-Sea, but at the current rate, we will need 10 times the amount being talked about by the end of this Parliament. Our high streets have been hollowed out by online and out-of-town shopping.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In West Ealing, in my constituency, we have seen all the banks close over the past decade or so. In fact, the town centre itself has visibly declined, in the way that he alluded to. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s decision to permanently reduce business rates for retail and hospitality businesses and to end the scourge of late payments, along with the 350 banking hubs that he mentions, will help revitalise places like West Ealing?
Ian Lavery
I agree that that will help to revitalise high streets, but the debate this afternoon is about how we assist the people in our communities, mainly the least well off, the disabled and the elderly who simply want a bank to use.
As I mentioned, our high streets have been hollowed out, but we can share some community pride—or indeed some community shame—on this issue. We can start a move towards the former by moving much-needed services, like banking hubs, into the hearts of the communities that we all represent. To do so, we need proper regulation of the banks. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has paid any attention that the banks cannot be allowed to police themselves.
The FCA needs proper teeth and the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2023 should be amended to ensure essential face-to-face services are protected alongside access to cash. During the debate on Lords Amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, before it was enacted, the then shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), said:
“I am disappointed that the amendments will do nothing to protect essential face-to-face services. Analysis published by consumer group Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank and building society branches have closed since January 2015—a shocking rate of about 54 closures each month—which risks excluding millions of people who rely on in-person services for help with opening new accounts, applying for loans, making or receiving payments, and standing orders.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]
The Labour party is proudly in power, and I am sure that we will address these issues. We are now in government, and it is time to take action. We need to curb the power of the big banks once and for all. We need to start a review into the impact on communities that are losing bank branches. We need to change legislation to ensure that community factors and face-to-face services are considered when a closure is announced. We need to be bold with proposals for banking hubs by directing the funding, which should come from the banks themselves, to create thousands of hubs up and down the UK. It is firmly in the remit of the Government to do just that, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take the cross-party support that we have seen already today and consider the steps to deliver justice to our communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Lavery
With the leave of the House, I will simply say a very brief thank you to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate, and to everybody who has participated in it. What my hon. Friend the Minister just said is exactly right. I am someone who has been criticised by Opposition Members as a left-wing dinosaur—I wear it as a badge of honour—but that would hardly be said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). People should recognise that when someone with my politics and someone with her politics absolutely agree with everything that has been said, there is surely something wrong.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of banking facilities to local communities and expresses concern over the precipitous decline over the past 40 years; notes the change to banking habits through online services; further recognises that, for vulnerable people, face-to-face banking is a vital service and a reduction of branches risks significant financial exclusion; further notes the impact of a loss of physical banking on small businesses through lost productivity and lost footfall; also notes the innovative nature of banking hubs as a solution to a loss of high street banking, but recognises that Financial Conduct Authority rules for their recommendation are too inflexible; and calls on the Government to instigate a review into the impact on communities of bank branch loss and a change to the regulations to ensure communities have appropriate access to banking facilities.
High Street Bank Closures
Ian Lavery Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks 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
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered high street bank closures and banking hubs.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to bring to the Chamber a really important issue: high street banking, which in my view, has been in absolute crisis with the precipitous decline in branches operating in communities up and down this country for the past four decades. Data from the British Banking Association shows that the number of branches in 1986 was more than 21,000; at the beginning of 2025, there were fewer than 5,000. Many smaller communities no longer have a high street bank.
Banking habits have clearly changed, with many people now using internet banking, but the loss of high street banks is a bitter blow to many people, particularly vulnerable groups in our communities, such as the aged, the frail and people with disabilities, all of whom are at serious risk of financial exclusion. For example, according to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, in my Blyth and Ashington constituency there are 3,420 people living with sight loss. That is extraordinary. For blind and partially sighted people who struggle with online access, bank closures are—at the least—devastating, and that is just one prime example of the groups of people affected by the disappearance of banks from the high street.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a very important subject for the hon. Gentleman and for me as well. We have lost 11 banks in my constituency. They put forward the idea of banking hubs; well, we have got one, and there is a second one on the way, but the fact is, it takes ages for them to arrive. Does he agree that what we need is urgency on the substitutions, whether they are banking hubs or alternatives, such as in post offices? If we do not have that for rural communities, then we do not have anything at all.
Ian Lavery
I agree. I have already mentioned the number of closures; I am not sure whether a post office can act as a back-up, because we have seen closure after closure of post offices, until eventually a number of the constituencies up and down the country have no facilities whatever.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The towns of Stoke, Longton and Fenton in my constituency will soon have no banking facilities at all. Link’s assessment of a banking hub is that it considers an hour’s bus journey, and a return cost of almost £5, to be acceptable parameters to say that my constituents can access banks in Hanley. Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we need not only to roll out banking hubs more quickly, but have the criteria change so that every town in every community can access a banking hub or high street banking facility?
Ian Lavery
That was the whole idea of bringing the debate to this Chamber. The issue is the inflexibility of Link and of the Financial Conduct Authority regulations, which means that even the smallest, most minute detail can mean that people are not going to have a banking hub. That really needs changing, for the sake of our communities. It impacts local businesses, which are also at risk of adverse effects as a result of bank closures, with reduced ability to manage their cash flows and, of course, reduced productivity due to time spent away while accessing banking services.
In my constituency, the coastal village of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea was left without a bank in 1999, meaning that for more than 25 years, local people have been forced to travel in order to access banking facilities. That is the point I make to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I want to use Bedlington as an example in my contribution, too. It is Northumberland’s fourth-largest town, and in May this year, it will be left without a bank, following TSB’s decision to close its branch on Front Street West. In recent years, bank branches in Blyth and Ashington, the two largest towns in my constituency, have also closed. While they are both currently served by banking providers, I can only wonder how long that will last.
The case of Bedlington is particularly worrying. It is a proud community with a rich and in many ways unique history. During the flight northwards from William the Conqueror’s army, the body of St Cuthbert is said to have been rested at what is now St Cuthbert’s church. The town and its surrounding areas were once an exclave of County Durham, then it developed into an industrial centre, with its ironworks and multiple coal mines. The loss of heavy industry has left a huge legacy, similar to that in many other post-industrial communities. When passing through that lovely place, Bedlington, people might not understand that unique history, with its traditions and cultures, because it has got a picturesque high street. The town contains pockets of significant deprivation, and the erosion of services in Bedlington makes the lives of those who are struggling ever more difficult.
Following the announcement that the final high street bank would close, my office triggered a review with Link into access to cash. Immediately after that, Link contacted my office to apologise about the fact that a review had not been automatically triggered, as would be the normal process. We were told that the review had been fast-tracked through the initial stages and a visit was arranged by one of the Link community assessment managers.
I met with the community assessment manager in Bedlington prior to the general election, following his assessment, and I could not have felt more positive about his reflections. He was an excellent ambassador for Link and, indeed, a good, intelligent man. He had been up Bedlington’s main street and spoken to the people there long before I arrived. He was gushing in his praise for Bedlington high street, describing it as a handsome high street that was well frequented, with a mixture of local businesses. He was unable, at that stage, to confirm that a banking hub would 100% be recommended, but it was heavily suggested that that would be the preferred solution.
I was absolutely delighted at that because, as I think everybody will agree, there is a great place for banking hubs. They are a good, progressive move forward. It is inflexibility that is the huge problem.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. We all understand that when a business is struggling, it has to cut costs, but these banks are closing branches despite making billions of pounds of profit. By pulling out of towns and the high street, those banks no longer provide a service for their customers—for the elderly, the disabled and local businesses. Knowing that banks need a licence to operate, does he agree that, to solve this growing problem, there needs to be a condition that, to get that licence, banks need to serve all of their customers and actually remain on the high streets?
Ian Lavery
That is absolutely reasonable, is it not?
The decision by Link or the Financial Conduct Authority is basically transactional. It does not really look at the community factors—it looks at a lot of different factors, but those do not count as points toward the overall result or announcement that there will be the go-ahead for additional services. That must change. It must embrace everything that is happening; it cannot be because the banks are leaving, which they have been on pace because of the profit margins. We have to start looking after communities and vulnerable people—the frail, the elderly and the disabled—in places like that and we need to change the regulations.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate and for his powerful points. On the point that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) just made, in recent years my constituency has become a banking desert—literally deprived of banks on high streets. For my neighbours living in Chadwell Heath, the nearest branch is some 40 minutes away and that is probably how long it takes to go from one end of my constituency to the other. Banks are not just profit-making organisations; they also offer a valuable service, and that has to be recognised. Does my hon. Friend agree that local banks as well as post offices and bank hubs have to be left on our high streets because of the service they provide, particularly to deprived communities?
Ian Lavery
Absolutely. It is essential and that is the whole reason behind this debate. I will get back to that.
I was more or less guaranteed, unofficially, that we had qualified in Bedlington. I was dumbfounded to see, when Link’s assessment was published some months later, that it suggested no additional services—no action to support the elderly woman from Bedlington station who banked in person on a weekly basis on Front Street, used the opportunity to speak with trusted members of staff without worrying about falling prey to scammers, met her friend for a coffee on Bedlington Front Street and took the opportunity to visit some local shops and spend a few pounds in the process.
There was no assessment of the impact on that woman, on other residents or on local businesses of allowing high street banking to be lost with no banking hub provided; no assessment of the impact on people like her who are now travelling to a neighbouring town and spending their money there instead. On inspection, it appeared that we had been turned down because there was a bank in Cramlington located 0.1 km closer to Bedlington Front Street, as the crow flies, than the regulations suggested were appropriate. That is why we were declined—because of 0.1 km—and it is time that that sort of thing was addressed.
We need to look at issues in the community such as deprivation, elderly people and those who, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, are in desperate need of facilities on the high street. I immediately applied to Link and, as advised by its parliamentary liaison officer, I submitted an appeal, which was summarily dismissed without much discussion. I emphasised that Bedlington, as the fourth-largest town in Northumberland, should not need to use facilities in other towns.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about a corner of the county that we share, and I am interested to hear his reflections on the communities that lose out on access to banking services. Does he agree that, with the shameful decision to close three branches in my constituency, there is a real risk that businesses in the Tyne valley, as well as elderly and vulnerable people, will lose access to those face-to-face services? Does he also agree that we need to consider the rural hinterland that is served by these larger towns when making these decisions so that rural businesses are not crippled by bank closures.
Ian Lavery
I fully agree with my hon. Friend from the neighbouring constituency to mine. Urban and rural areas face the same issues; we are being abandoned on the high street by these large banks. That is why we need to get the criteria changed to make sure that we allow Link—
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ellie Chowns
On the specific point of the criteria, I could not agree with him more. It is really problematic. In my constituency of North Herefordshire, we have a banking hub opening in Leominster, now that Lloyds bank has left. However, in Kington, which does not have a bus service to Leominster, there is a fantastic post office that could be a banking hub, but it has been told that it does not fit the criteria. I do not understand why. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ask the Government to make sure that these criteria are reassessed, because banking, especially in remote areas, is such an important function for businesses and individuals. We cannot continue with the system as is.
Ian Lavery
I agree totally about the transport hubs. We cannot say to an elderly, frail or disabled person, “Get that bus to the next town. It’s only three mile.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned, is it reasonable to say to somebody, “If you can get there within an hour, that means you don’t need a facility.”? The criteria need to be changed.
I will ask the Minister a number of questions that I hope he will consider. I am fully aware that 100 Link hubs have been set up already, 200 are in the system, and it is hoped that there will be 350. That is really positive, but it would still leave behind and abandon lots of communities such as mine in Bedlington. The dealings I have had with Link and the FCA have been perfectly cordial, but wholly and utterly transactional. It is, basically, “Computer says no”. The legislation cannot simply focus on access to cash and ignore the loss of banking services.
I hope the Minister will agree that the current rules leave Northumberland’s fourth-largest town with no bank and no banking hub, and that they are too inflexible. It is within the power of the Government to change the regulations. Will the Minister consider asking Link to look at other community factors when assessing the suitability of a banking hub? Does he agree that all areas are unique, and should not be shoehorned into a rigid process that does not fit them? Does he agree that measuring the distance as the crow flies from the doors of the last bank to close is not reasonable, and takes no account of the distance vulnerable people already have to travel?
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the subject of vulnerable people, I want to say that the last two branches in Whitby have announced that they will close, and an adult gaming centre is already looking at the Halifax site. We are getting a temporary banking hub, but does my hon. Friend agree that vulnerable residents rely on having a branch, and that, somewhere along the line, the words “providing a service”, seems to have been lost to banks?
Ian Lavery
Unfortunately, my understanding is that high street banks want to centralise in much bigger places and make much higher profits, and do not consider the communities that the two of us serve. Does the Minister agree that the demographics of an area should be of paramount importance when assessing the need for a banking hub, and will he take steps to include that in the criteria? Does he agree that banks should commit to a local service before putting profits before communities? Does he agree that the Government should have the means to intervene in decisions such as the one I described in Bedlington and other Members described in their constituencies? If Northumberland’s fourth-largest town is being failed, something is sadly wrong. The current criteria are simply not fit for purpose. They abandon many of our most vulnerable constituents. A wholesale, root-and-branch review is required, to make life easier, not more difficult, for those we proudly represent.
Banking Services: Rural Northumberland
Ian Lavery Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Morris
I very much agree that before a bank branch closes, we need to mitigate the consequences. We need to make sure that the rural economy has space to grow, so that people like my constituents do not face such long journeys, which are particularly hard to navigate on public transport.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Northumberland is a wonderful county, but does he agree that it is not just rural Northumberland that is suffering? We have banking deserts in Bedlington, Blyth, Ashington, Newbiggin and other areas. Vulnerable people are suffering greatly where the banks have just up and left without any accountability. Does he agree that we must take immediate action to look after these vulnerable people?
Joe Morris
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know how hard he fights for his constituents across Blyth and Ashington, and I know how much bank closures have impacted his part of the world, and more urban parts of Northumberland. I completely agree that we need to fight for these services in all our constituencies. I am reminded of a 74-year-old constituent who was forced to travel from Wark to Morpeth on three separate occasions in order to have a face-to-face conversation.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that she is a doughty champion for her constituents. I hear what she says about her rural constituency. Mine is not a rural constituency, but I speak to people across the country who are really struggling with digital connectivity, as she outlines. It is something that the Government are taking very seriously, and we are aware of the obstacles in the way of people trying to access services online.
I am pleased that this is my first parliamentary debate as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because this is an issue that is close to my heart, and one that I am determined to try to address. It is a privilege to be able to use this office to tackle some of the country’s most important issues, as my hon. Friend just said. Ensuring access to banking and supporting financial inclusion featured very highly in our manifesto, which all Labour Members were elected on. We want to ensure that our constituents manage to access the services that they deserve.
Before I get on to the meat of the topic, I will briefly provide the context. Although many people have benefited from changes to the UK’s banking landscape, such as the ease and convenience for some people of remote banking, it is clear to me that others have found it a lot more challenging. According to the consumer organisation Which? over 600 branches in the UK have closed since 2015. Bank branch closures have significantly impacted those in communities who need access to in-person banking services. I am really sorry to hear about some of the specific cases that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham talked about his 74-year-old constituent who has to travel so far. That example particularly stood out to me, because that should not be the case.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking, and banking access, to our communities. Not only is it is key to the health and vibrancy of those communities, but as he pointed out, it helps them to drive forward and benefit from our country’s economic growth, and the rural economy. To anyone listening to the debate, please be in no doubt that the Government share the objective of enhancing access to banking services, and we will be prioritising the delivery of that accordingly.
Work has already started. Obviously, we have not been in Government for very long, but even before the election we committed to working closely with banks to roll out at least 350 banking hubs, which will provide individuals and businesses up and down the country with critical cash and banking services.
Ian Lavery
Banking hubs are in many ways very helpful. However, will the Minister consider reviewing the criteria? I have an issue in my constituency where the distance of the nearest bank is one tenth of a mile too short to get a banking hub. Because of that, they are considering not putting a banking hub in place. Is there potential to review the criteria, to support the most vulnerable people in our communities?
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says about protecting vulnerable people in our constituencies. That is why a lot of us stood for the Labour party: because we want to protect the most vulnerable. I will come on to LINK, which provides the banking hubs, but if he does not mind writing to me and laying out exactly what the issue is, I can write to him about the topic and about the criteria, because it sounds as if there is a very small matter that needs looking at and I am happy to do so. I will talk later about LINK, but I ask him to make representations as well.
Public Spending: Inheritance
Ian Lavery Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
During the last Parliament, the Government paid substantial amounts to the train operating companies to make good their losses during a prolonged period of industrial dispute, causing mayhem and causing chaos to the general public. At the same time, the train operating companies paid huge dividends and they also paid their executives massive increases in bonuses. Can my right hon. Friend say how much this actually cost the British taxpayer, and can she ensure that this never ever happens again?
Rachel Reeves
Yes, page 5 of the “Fixing the foundations” document that we have published today sets out the pressures on public spending. On rail services:
“Pressures have emerged on rail finances, primarily due to the weaker-than-expected recovery in passenger demand”,
as well as the cost of industrial action, have led
“to a pressure of £1.6 billion”
in this financial year alone.
Economy, Welfare and Public Services
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
I detect a bit of surprise on the Government Benches. I have risen to speak on scrapping the cap. In the grand tapestry of British politics, where the warp and weft of policy and principle interlace, it is not often that a Conservative MP will find threads of agreement with friends across the aisle, but here we are, discussing a proposal backed by Labour MPs, led by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and backed by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and many Opposition parties. It is one with which I agree, because it speaks to my profound sense of justice and, dare I say, compassion. I will say why Conservatives can and should back scrapping the cap.
Let us not rewrite history, because there has been a lot of nonsense from Labour Front Benchers about the situation that we inherited in 2010. To put it simply, we inherited no less than an economic catastrophe, and we worked hard to recover from that situation. The deficit stood at 10% in 2010; we got that down to 1.9%. Public sector net borrowing was at 10%; we got that down to 3%. We were in a deep recession, and we now have the fastest growing economy in the G7.
We had to make incredibly difficult decisions back in 2010 to reduce our welfare bill, but it is clear to me that through those welfare reforms, spearheaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), we overhauled an overly complex, bureaucratic system, and helped millions of people get back into work. Four million more people are in work now than in 2010. The unemployment rate is down to 4.4%—almost half what it was in 2010. We can make changes to some of the decisions that we made back then.
It is clear to me from my work with vulnerable families in Fareham that the cap is not working. It is pushing more children and families into relative poverty, causing them to use more food banks. There are three good reasons for scrapping the cap.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell the House who introduced the cap, why, and which way she voted when the measure went through this House?
Suella Braverman
I just set out that the parlous economic situation forced us to make impossible choices, but thanks to the improved economics and the improvements brought about by universal credit, I believe that it is time to put child poverty first and scrap the cap. There are three big reasons for Conservatives to support that. First, it is affordable. For about £1.7 billion—0.14% of total Government spending—we could quickly bring around 300,000 children out of poverty. In this improved situation, that is the fair and right thing to do. Secondly, the reason why it was introduced in the first place was to disincentivise poorer families from having more children, but that has not necessarily worked. The number of children born has remained relatively stable. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found, heartbreakingly, 43% of children in larger families are in poverty. The children hardest hit are those under four. It predominantly affects younger children, and those in large families. I believe that the cap is aggravating child poverty, and it is time for it to go.
I know that there is the argument, “Don’t have children if you can’t afford them.” To me, that is not compassionate, fair or the right thing to say. As Conservatives, we should be proudly and loudly the party of family. We should encourage families on lower incomes to have more children. For those families on middle and higher incomes, we should change our tax regime so that they are incentivised to have children. We have better parental leave policies, better childcare provision policies and better maternity care. I am a Conservative because I believe in the strength and the sovereignty of the family unit. We should support it, not suppress it. This is not about right or left. This is about right or wrong. Let us come together, in a spirit of compassion and common sense, to scrap the cap and end child poverty for good.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2024
Ian Lavery Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
I beg to move,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2024.
This instrument makes an update to financial services legislation to make operating a pension dashboard service a Financial Conduct Authority-regulated activity. Let me begin by saying that the Government have long held the ambition of delivering pension dashboard services to the public. It is very important that individuals can easily access and view data about their pension savings in one place and at their convenience. Executed well, pension dashboards can deliver significant benefits to consumers, providing better access to information about their pensions held in different schemes. These days, people often have many different schemes.
The instrument will bring a step change in how people engage with their pension savings and will finally allow people to have a full picture of those savings. Equipped with that information, individuals will be better able to plan for their retirement, seek financial advice and guidance, find lost pension pots and make informed decisions. The Government are supporting the development of the digital architecture needed to make pension dashboards a reality, as well as facilitating the development of a Government-backed pension dash-board by the Money and Pensions Service. We have also supported the development of multiple private sector pension dashboards. Different individuals will have different needs, and this will ensure that a wider range of platforms exist to suit such needs.
However, we are clear that this multiplicity of providers can only take place with a suitable and robust regulatory framework, recognising that consumers using pension dashboards could be vulnerable to unfair potential harms. During the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, the Government committed to bringing the operation of a pension dashboard service within FCA regulation. This order amends the regulatory perimeter to make operating a pension dashboard service that connects to the Money and Pensions Service’s digital architecture a regulated activity. Once in force, it will mean that anybody choosing to operate a pension dashboard will need to be authorised and regulated by the FCA.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
This new legislation refers to a lot of personal data about individuals’ pensions, and the Government have suggested that commercial bodies will also be involved. Can the Minister give guarantees about the protection of the data of individuals concerned?
Inheritance Tax
Ian Lavery Excerpts(1 year, 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
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for bringing this debate to this Chamber; it has been interesting to listen to the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) gave some alarming statistics about widening inequalities. He spoke about the entrenched wealth and privilege that is rampant in this country.
I am not surprised that, at this stage in this Conservative Government, the Tories are looking to halve or abolish inheritance tax. Is it a pre-election giveaway? Is it red meat for the blue wall areas? Is it red meat for the rich? I think so, I really do. The impact of halving or getting rid of inheritance tax will fall upon only one section of society, and that is the less well-off. The richest people are where this policy is focused. The richest people in society will benefit from the abolition of inheritance tax.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth said, if we get rid of inheritance tax, we are talking about a loss to the Treasury of £7 billion. What could any MP in this debate do with £7 billion in their constituency? How many hospitals could we build nationally for £7 billion? Forget about repairing schools; how many could we build with £7 billion? How many youth clubs could be built with £7 billion? It could be used to look after ordinary people, in ordinary communities. Seven billion pounds—it is a lot of money to lose.
Inheritance tax has a long history. Contrary to what many people believe, it is not a modern tax created by crazy lefties. The first tax on the administration of a deceased person’s estate was the probate duty imposed by the Stamp Act of 1664. The roots of the modern version of inheritance tax can be traced to the estate duty created by Chancellor William Harcourt’s Budget of 1894. There has long been an acceptance that, when the wealthiest in our society die, the transfer of their wealth should not benefit only their heirs—as has already been said, they have done nothing at all to earn that wealth. Part of that wealth should also benefit communities and the country as a whole.
Inheritance tax is paid on estates worth more than £325,000. I think each speaker has mentioned this—forgive me for repeating it, but it is important—but if the main residence of the deceased is left to a descendant child, the value of that home is not included in the value of the estate and, when the entire estate is left to a spouse, no inheritance tax is paid.
Very few people pay this tax. In the tax year 2022-23, 3.73% of estates paid inheritance tax—3.73%—and only 1.9% of those estates that had to pay inheritance tax were in the north-east of England.
Jon Trickett
Out of the 29 constituencies in the north-east of England, only three paid a penny of inheritance tax in that last tax year. Does my hon. Friend think that cutting inheritance tax will put massive amounts of additional resources into his region?
Ian Lavery
I will come on to that, but as ever, my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point.
After Northern Ireland, the north-east of England pays the least, but have a guess where 42% of the estates that attract inheritance tax are located—have a guess, Sir Robert. They are here in London and the south-east —the blue areas. [Interruption.] I am sorry; if the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) wants to intervene, I am happy to accept an intervention. Does he want to intervene?
Ian Lavery
He is chuntering away, so I just wondered whether he wanted to come in.
It is amazing how inheritance tax can be avoided. The biggest exemption, of course, is the nil rate on leaving everything to a spouse. Other exemptions include transfers to qualifying charities or registered clubs, and lifetime gifts given within seven years before death—this one is interesting: wealthy grandparents use it as tax relief on paying their grandchildren’s private school fees. Another exemption is business property relief, which allows no inheritance to be paid on the transfer on death of shares in a business that is not quoted on the stock exchange. Many of those shares are in valuable family firms. Agricultural land also often passes tax-free. Debts owed by the deceased can be deducted from the tax bill.
Ian Lavery
I will in a minute.
This one is absolutely unreal: the largest landowner in Northumberland donated a painting in lieu of tax. In 2015, the largest landowner in Northumberland avoided a £2.8 million inheritance tax bill by leaving a Van Dyck to the Bowes Museum. In that family’s property—it is not a terraced house, you know—they now have one less picture hanging on the wall for his heirs, but there is also almost £3 million less that could have gone to help poorer families in my constituency. I divvent care what anybody thinks; that’s not fair, man. It is not fair at all.
It is unreal to think that the wealthiest can avoid inheritance tax by giving a painting instead. How many people who have personal tax issues can say, “Look, if I give you a book, is that all right?” Of course it is not all right, man. It is one rule for the rich and another for ordinary working people who work hard and pay their taxes.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I particularly wanted to intervene when he was talking about business and agricultural property relief. Does he agree that the survival of many farms and family businesses relies on the fact that they are not taxed at the point of death?
Ian Lavery
I would not dispute that that is the case.
But let me get back to the political issue. This is pure politics. It is simple: it is about red meat. The Conservatives, through the press, support the myth that abolishing inheritance tax will somehow have an impact on ordinary people in communities because some people have their own houses. I have already explained that very few working-class people in communities right across the country will actually be impacted if we continue with this. Leaving properties to children, especially in areas with high property values such as London, makes a huge difference.
This will benefit wealthy people in electorally vulnerable blue wall seats. Seventy-five per cent of the top 60 seats in which inheritance tax has been paid are held by Conservative MPs, mostly here in the south. It will help the families of the wealthy Conservatives, such as the Prime Minister. That is why I oppose this measure. Inheritance tax is a means of lessening inequalities and mitigates against gross amounts of unearned wealth going to the children of the wealthy—children who did absolutely nothing to create that wealth. Most of the money saved from cutting or abolishing the tax will go to benefit wealthy areas in the south. It will do nothing to help people in Wansbeck, Hemsworth, Easington or Coventry —nothing at all. There would be less money for their health, less money for their education and less investment in the infrastructure that all the areas I have mentioned badly need. Our social mobility statistics in Wansbeck are some of the lowest in England, but instead of doing something to increase my constituents’ life prospects, the Conservatives are spending their time planning on how to give more money to the already wealthy.
The few very rich families in Northumberland, with all their large agricultural assets, pay less inheritance tax than they should now, while thousands are still using food banks and claiming benefits just to survive. Instead of cutting or abolishing inheritance tax, the rate should be increased and the exemptions eliminated to help to alleviate the current obscene gap between the rich and the poor. Public services are in tatters and councils are going bust left, right and centre. Taxing those who can afford it most is one means of alleviating the horrendous damage that this Government are doing to the social fabric of communities like mine up and down the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Lavery Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Hunt
It is very simply this: since 2010, we have become the strongest economy in Europe in film and television, life sciences and technology, and the opportunities are great with a Conservative Government.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I do not accept that characterisation at all. I do understand the impact of mesothelioma, as my father died of it, but this Government have invested £15 billion to keep schools safe since 2015, and the Chancellor has set out other figures as well.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Lavery Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the answer to inflation is to tackle it, not to make it worse.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Jeremy Hunt
We understand the pressures that families are going through up and down the country, but we have responded with generous support this year and last of more than £3,000 for the average household. Not only that, but since 2010 the number of children in absolute poverty has fallen by 400,000.
Corporate Profit and Inflation
Ian Lavery Excerpts(2 years, 1 month 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
Richard Burgon
That is absolutely right. It is scandalous when workers are not fairly paid, the public are being ripped off, and all this profiteering is causing the price crisis that we see. It is not for nothing that people call it greedflation.
On price caps, for all its obvious flaws in not being set low enough, the Government’s energy price guarantee, which was introduced last year, was an important break with the idea that the Government cannot interfere in market pricing to protect people. Surely such price caps should be extended to other sectors. It is very welcome that London Mayor Sadiq Khan has called for powers to allow him to impose private rent controls in London. Other countries do this, so why can we not do so here? On soaring food prices, the French Government have secured a deal with some of the country’s major retailers to place a price cap on staple foods to ease the pressure of inflation on consumers. Why not here?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Is it not absolutely perverse that in the fifth richest economy in the world we are seeing, on the one hand, supermarkets and retailers making billions and billions of pounds and, on the other, parents criminalising themselves by stealing baby formula because they cannot afford to feed their newborns? What on earth has gone wrong in this country?