Student Loans
Debate between Ian Sollom and Caroline Nokes(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom
The point is to allow the market and the regulation of that market to decide. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. To be helpful, the hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the microphone is in front of him; it makes it much harder for Hansard and for the viewing public to pick up his words if he faces the back of the Chamber.
Ian Sollom
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will turn to the threshold and the interest rate—areas on which we do substantially agree with the Conservative motion’s diagnosis, if not its proposed remedy. In the system as it stands, the interest rate matters financially only for those who repay in full, which most graduates do not. That is by design to share the costs between the graduate and the state. It means that the largest benefit of the Conservatives’ proposal would flow to the highest earners—those who repay completely. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, it would be regressive in its distribution, which is why more thought is required on interest structure.
On the threshold, the picture is more straightforward. Before the election, the Education Secretary promised that graduates would pay less under Labour, as the shadow Minister said, and, in their first Budget, the Government left the threshold rising. Then, in their second Budget, the Government froze the threshold for three years from 2027.
Ministers have cited a £5.9 billion figure as the yield of this change, but we should be clear about what that figure is: it is the discounted present value of extra repayments across nearly 30 years, with the bulk sitting in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s. The annual cash impact during this Parliament is relatively small, and the change barely moves the needle on the Chancellor’s own fiscal rules. Graduates will bear a real and immediate burden in their payslip for the remainder of their loan for a cash-flow improvement that is modest in this Parliament and does nothing at all for the Chancellor’s balanced Budget rule. Of all the choices in November’s Budget, why did they make this one?
I note that the Government’s amendment today welcomes a commitment to making the system fairer, and such commitments should be welcomed. However, graduates are waiting for action. Let me therefore set out what the Liberal Democrats would do. First, we would unfreeze the plan 2 threshold immediately and tie it to earnings, as was originally promised. Secondly, we would restore meaningful maintenance grants. Students from the poorest families can borrow £1,284 less today in real terms than in 2020-21. The £1,000 grant reaches about 10% of students, restricted to specific subjects. I think we can do better on maintenance policy: grants must be available regardless of subject, and the parental income thresholds that have been frozen since 2008 must be urgently uprated.
Thirdly, we would establish a royal commission on graduate finance, including plans 2, 3 and 5—plans 3 and 5 have terms that are, in several respects, even harsher. All those plans should be in scope. It should also have independent oversight of key parameters. That is not to delay, but to look seriously at fairer interest structures, total repayment caps and progressive repayment rates, and, critically, to build the cross-party settlement that is the only real protection against the next Government squeezing graduates again.
The system has been treated as a fiscal convenience rather than a social contract by the previous Government, and now by this one. Graduates deserve better.
High Street Gambling Reform
Debate between Ian Sollom and Caroline Nokes(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate and for all her hard work on this issue. What she has been doing is impressive.
Gambling can be a light-hearted pastime that many would describe as fun and harmless. As a Liberal Democrat, I support an individual’s right to choose, but, as we have heard, gambling comes at a very high cost for some people —some of the stories shared by the hon. Member for Brent East were very moving. That is true not just for those who are directly affected by gambling, but for their friends, their families, and all those who have that emotional burden and—in some cases—shared financial burden.
I will delve into a few of the statistics—some have already been mentioned, but they are worth emphasising. According to last July’s “Gambling Survey for Great Britain” an estimated 2.5% of adults have struggled with problem gambling, equating to over 1 million people. The proportion of people with severe problem gambling was nine times higher for those using in-person slot machines and six times higher for those using online slots. More than one in 40 people who gambled in the last year experienced severe harm to their life, such as turning to crime to finance gambling, experiencing a relationship breakdown or losing their home, and Public Health England estimates that, tragically, there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides a year. Gambling affects all ages and genders, but the rates are particularly high among men and young people. More than one in 20 of those aged 18 to 34 who had gambled in the last 12 months reported a severe impact on their life.
Liberal Democrats have long been calling for gambling reform, and we are pleased that the Government have listened to us in one key area. We campaigned for many years for the remote gaming duty to be doubled, and the Government have done exactly that. That was the right decision, but on the high street—the subject of this debate—much more action is needed. Liberal Democrats support removing the “aim to permit” principle, that statutory presumption under the Gambling Act 2005, giving local authorities the same power to refuse applications for gambling venues as they have for pubs and other licensed premises. That would enable local authorities to introduce cumulative impact policies to prevent clustering and saturation of gambling premises in areas deemed more vulnerable to harm. It is also important that local public health bodies can make statutory representations, and that public health evidence is given full weight in those licensing decisions.
Additionally, we believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by problem gambling. With that in mind, we have been calling for gambling advertising to be restricted, to tackle the gambling adverts that bombard people through their TVs and radios as well as marketing via social media; for a gaming ombudsman to be established, one with real power to protect consumers and resolve complaints; for affordability checks to be enforced and implemented by mandating financial checks and data sharing to stop gambling beyond means; and for tough action to be taken against black-market gambling.
Access to a range of support services is also vital. Anyone worried about their gambling or anyone close to them should be able to seek help easily in their local area, and gambling firms must pay their fair share towards those services. A related concern, and one which is shared by leading support charities, is that the introduction of the statutory levy on gambling firms must not mean gambling support services being disrupted during this year’s transition period. We call on the Government to ensure that interim funding is available, so that vulnerable people do not fall through the cracks during that transition.
Although most people who regularly gamble do so without a problem, it is evident that for some, it is a slippery slope that leads to a host of financial, personal and health problems. We have a duty to prevent that from happening in the first place, and to help those who are already struggling. As such, I urge the Government to act as a matter of urgency to tackle the very real and evident harm gambling can cause to families, children, young people and communities across the country.
Live Events Ticketing: Resale and Pricing Practices
Debate between Ian Sollom and Caroline Nokes(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I add my thanks to the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It is good to have the Government’s next steps to try to support fans, performers and others working in the live events industry laid out in the announcement. We know the huge value of live events in this country, which make a great contribution to our economic as well as our cultural wellbeing, and it is right that the Government are taking action. Too many fans across the country have fallen prey to sharp practices and touts ripping them off, and the Liberal Democrats are supportive of taking action.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on ticket resale. Those recommendations should be leading the Government forward on this issue. Measures such as capping ticket resales are important. Can the Minister provide greater clarity on the Government’s intentions in that regard? Will he suggest what cap on ticket resales the Government would favour at the moment and what new powers of enforcement they will give to trading standards and the CMA? Beyond those measures, will the Government consider being more ambitious by, for example, giving consumers more control by requiring ticket companies to provide accurate information on price increases or answering Liberal Democrat calls to review the use of transaction fees?
I want to be clear that we welcome the Government’s looking at the queuing systems used by ticket sellers in both the primary and resale markets and considering measures that could address the current situation, which, as the Minister described, too often feels unfair and arbitrary to those fans on the end of it. Hearing the voices of fans in this discussion is undoubtedly important, so we really welcome the consultation, but fans also want to know that the Government will get on and act to solve these problems. To conclude, may I ask the Minister to inform the House about when fans will start to see some changes being implemented?