Local Bank Closures

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross]

My hon. Friend makes the point that hubs have been created before and there should be no blockage. However, the banks seem unable or unwilling to move forward on the issue, and perhaps the Minister can use either a carrot or a stick to encourage them to do a little more.

I will end by putting some points to the Minister and asking him some questions, and then I will allow others to contribute to this debate. I was interested to read a report from July 2018 by the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, which was chaired by my colleague Gordon Lindhurst. The report contained a number of key points, including that there will be an indefinite ongoing need for cash and universal face-to-face banking provision; that the access to banking standard, with its post-closure-decision consultation, is failing and a binding pre-decision consultation is needed; and that there is a need for the UK Government to research the issue properly and come up with binding statutory and regulatory conclusions.

I know that the Minister listened intently and understood the concerns of Scottish Members when he addressed this issue at the Scottish Affairs Committee this morning. I hope that, with some of the asks from me and other Members, the UK Government can make some progress on this issue.

I hope that the Minister will look at the access to banking standard and toughen it up, because some banks are not part of it. As I said when I read out communications from a constituent and others, there are concerns that banks are not adhering to the standard. I also hope that he will engage with the banks about banking hubs; the banks have too easily written off that suggestion rather than engaging properly on it. Although I accept that there are commercial reasons why banks choose to leave towns, I hope that the Minister will accept that the situation is different when a bank branch is the last to leave a town or village, and that that has a far greater impact than earlier closures.

To conclude, there has already been a devastating reduction in the number of branches across Moray, across Scotland and across the UK. We almost always lose ATMs at the same time, and therefore access to cash as well. We need to reverse that trend. Banks can improve their image—it is not always the most positive—by listening to communities and working with them, and not by simply leaving towns and villages. To date, I do not believe that the Government have done enough. We can also improve our image on this issue by working with communities and ensuring that they retain the banking presence and bank branches that they so greatly need.

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

I intend to start calling Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.27 pm. That leaves roughly between four and five minutes if each Back-Bench Member who wishes to speak is to have an equal share of the time that is left; I leave Back-Bench Members to manage their time themselves.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I campaigned during the referendum to remain; I voted to remain; and, like many, I was devastated at the outcome. While the EU is far from perfect, our country, our capital and my constituency have benefited hugely from our membership of it. Enfield North constituents voted narrowly to remain. However, I accepted that the country as a whole voted to leave, and the Government therefore had a mandate to negotiate a Brexit deal, so I voted to trigger article 50. I can say that I deeply regret this decision. If I had known then that the Government would make such a mess of the negotiations and would bring back a deal that will make my constituents and our country so much poorer, I would never have voted to trigger it.

The Government are pursuing a policy that will damage our country for generations. Damning economic analysis by the Treasury shows that, in every scenario, Brexit would make our country worse off. Nobody voted for that in 2016: it was not on the ballot paper; nor was it plastered as a pithy slogan on the side of a bus. A YouGov Brexit poll in The Times yesterday shows clearly that a growing number of people believe the leave vote was a mistake and less than one in four people support the Prime Minister’s deal.

People do have the right to change their minds. In separate YouGov research this month, three times more voters say the case for the public being given a final say on Brexit has been strengthened than say it has been weakened. The majority of the public now support a people’s vote, including 60% of people living in Enfield North. Is that any wonder, given that the Prime Minister has consistently put her party’s interests before the interests of this country? It is pointless for her to tour the TV and radio studios to sell her Brexit deal to the public, but not give them the opportunity to decide whether they want to buy the deal with a people’s vote.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has said that

“the abject failure of the Government—and the huge risk we now face of either a bad deal or a ‘no deal’ Brexit—means that giving people a fresh say…is now the right, and only, approach left for the good of our country.”

The public must not be shut out of this decision, given what is at stake. Huge economic risks and human costs are involved. Independent economic analysis shows that every Brexit outcome analysed would be bad for the economy. A worst case no-deal Brexit could mean 87,000 fewer jobs in the capital alone by 2030, and a lost decade of less investment and lower growth.

At Brimsdown in Enfield, we have the second largest industrial estate in London. It is a vital part of our local economy, with 8,000 people employed in 240 companies on site. Many of these companies trade throughout the EU, relying on the single market, the customs union and freedom of movement. If we were to crash out of the EU with no deal or leave with this bad deal, Brimsdown and our local economy will suffer.

Enfield has already been hammered by eight years of Tory austerity. The council is having to cope with a £178 million cut to its budget, which is piling huge pressure on services. There is soaring child poverty, with 34,000 children in the borough now living below the bread line. One in three jobs in Enfield is paid less than the London living wage. Families are struggling just to keep their heads above water, and I am not willing to gamble with their livelihoods and our economy to satisfy the fantasies of hard Brexiteers.

We have other responsibilities about which to be mindful, such as the future of our young people and ensuring they get the best possible start in life. All the young people I have talked to feel that we have sold them down the river. It is time to go back to the people and let them decide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

As a Minister at the Treasury, I am delighted if people voluntarily step forward to pay more tax than they are due. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that that is already possible by way of a gift to the Crown. I am looking at ways of raising awareness of that particular opportunity, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss such options. I would also point out to right hon. and hon. Members the very generous gift aid reliefs that the Treasury provides for those who wish to make direct payments to charities of their choice.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

T2. Four in 10 of Enfield’s children are living below the poverty line, which is almost 34,000 children. The borough is the 11th most impoverished area for children in the UK, and my constituency is now among the top 20 constituencies in the country with the fastest growing levels of child poverty. Is the Chancellor pursuing any kind of joined-up policies with other relevant Departments to do what the Prime Minister said, and“make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us”,including those 34,000 children?

[Mel Stride]

The Government believe that work is one of the most important drivers of bringing people out of poverty, and we are rolling out universal credit as a consequence. There is evidence that that is more successful as a way of doing so than relying on legacy benefits. As the right hon. Lady will probably know, 200,000 fewer children are now in absolute poverty than was the case in 2010.

Budget Resolutions

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), although I am not sure whether we will find a great deal to agree on. In the run-up to this Budget and during the Chancellor’s speech today, we heard a lot about building a Britain “fit for the future”, but many of my constituents do not share the Chancellor’s confidence that the Government’s proposals will achieve that vision.

I have been in Enfield for more than 20 years, and I have always considered it to be a fantastic place to live and great place to raise a family. However, for too many residents of Enfield North, especially hard-working and hard-pressed families, the past seven years of Tory austerity have led to more insecurity, poorer public services and, in some cases, abject poverty. Child poverty has risen to its highest level since 2010, as I mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions when I pointed out that the IFS and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predict that an additional 1.2 million children will be pushed into poverty by 2021 on top of the 4 million in 2015-16. That is not a proud record; it is a scandal and a moral issue facing this country and this Government. Enfield is the worst-affected borough in London, with almost one third of children living in poverty. The Chancellor was emphatic that that was being dealt with, but let me tell the House what Alison Garnham, the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said about today’s Budget that:

“this should have been the Budget that ushered in much needed structural reform of Universal Credit to revive the central promise to strengthen the rewards from work and that didn’t happen. Our new analysis finds while effective tax rates may have improved for some families, big falls in family income caused by cuts and changes to Universal Credit have left many worse off overall, overwhelming any gains from increases in the ‘national living wage’, personal tax allowances and help for childcare. Families on universal credit who want to get better off through earnings gained little from today’s Budget.”

I am more inclined to accept what the chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group has to say than the Chancellor’s empty words.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I do not know whether she has had an opportunity to study “Impact on households: distributional analysis to accompany Autumn Budget 2017”, but its analysis shows that

“since 2010, households across all income deciles have seen growth in their disposable incomes, on average”.

That is good news, and I am sure that she would want to welcome it.

[Joan Ryan]

If the right hon. Lady sat in my advice surgery and listened to what was said by families in Enfield, where over a third of children live in poverty, she would find that the amount of disposable income that people have is a major problem, and that most families feel that rising costs, particularly due to rent, have wiped out any possible gains.

Almost six in 10 Londoners in poverty live in a working family, so the picture of poverty has changed. Those people are not “scroungers,” as they are sometimes referred to; they are working people who are trying to get on in life. A third of all jobs in Enfield are classed as low paid and are below the London living wage, as recent research by the Trust for London has shown. The Government’s failure to address these issues has meant that many families are unable to just about manage today, let alone build for tomorrow.

Enfield now ranks as the London borough with the fourth highest food bank usage. Last year, 5,974 three-day emergency food supplies were provided to people in Enfield, with 2,434 given to children. The roll-out of universal credit in Enfield, which started this month, will make a bad situation even worse. The Trussell Trust has said that demand for emergency food parcels is 30% higher in areas where universal credit is being implemented. Week in, week out, I see many hard-working families at my constituency advice surgery who are living on or below the breadline.

I want to say a few words about housing. A great many constituents come to see me about problems that are related in some way to housing, particularly those living in the insecure private rented sector. The threat of falling into rent arrears, and of families being put at risk of eviction and long-term debt due to the roll-out of universal credit, has only added to their concerns. Stagnant wages, fast-rising rents and a crisis in housing supply have created a perfect storm in Enfield, which now has the highest eviction rate in the capital. Homelessness acceptances have risen by a staggering 82% over the past two years. Enfield has the second highest number of temporary accommodation placements in London, which puts even more pressure on an already strained housing market. Again, that is not a record of which the Chancellor can be proud.

Today the Chancellor said, “House prices are increasingly out of reach for many”—yes, they are. He continued: “It takes too long to save for a deposit”—yes, it does, if someone can save at all—“and rents absorb too high a portion of monthly income”. But the OBR report makes it clear that house prices will rise as a result of the measures announced today. When the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) intervened on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to ask about houses for social rent, the right hon. Gentleman insisted that the Budget statement referred to that. I listened to the Chancellor’s speech and I have read through the printed copy, but I heard and read nothing about that. He did say that the Government would increase supply “including nearly 350,000 affordable homes”, but the question is: affordable for whom? There is nothing about houses at a social rent. I think that is a disgrace, completely ignoring the desperate need.

[Ian C. Lucas]

A Conservative Member said earlier that we should learn lessons from how bad things were in the 1970s. I was brought up in a council house during the 1970s, and that gave me a tremendous base in my life. We should be proud of that. The Conservative party should learn a lesson from that and treat people with some respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan]

I completely agree. I, too, was brought up in a council house, and we were proud of it and considered it the next best thing to owning our own home—we hardly drew a distinction. That is not the case today. Indeed, it is becoming impossible to offer anybody a council house.

[Jamie Stone]

rose—

[Joan Ryan]

I will not give way again, because I need to make some progress.

I want to say a few words about public services. Hard-pressed and hard-working families rely on our public services, but seven years of austerity has stretched them to breaking point. Labour-led Enfield Council has tried its level best to protect families from the immense pressures it is under, but given that its Government grant has been reduced by £93 million, it is now able to do so much less. The extent of the cuts that local authorities are having to make is unsustainable.

I notice that when we talk about social care, the environment, pollution and policing, the answer we get from the Government every time is “local authorities”, but they are slashing local authorities’ budgets on the one hand and then pushing responsibilities on to them on the other. The Government know that that circle cannot be squared—it is an impossible task. They are undermining our public services and undermining our local councils.

Primary and secondary schools in Enfield are due to lose a further £15 million by 2020. Heads will have to cut even more teaching posts, which will affect every child’s ability to achieve their best.

My constituents deserve good-quality health services. Instead, we have seen the Tory Government shutting Chase Farm Hospital’s A&E and maternity units and slashing the number of in-patient beds by more than 400. The other hospital we now use and rely on, North Middlesex, is being put under increasing pressure, with the result that it constantly faces a crisis. The Royal College of General Practitioners has said that Enfield needs 84 more GPs by 2020, but I have little confidence that the Government will provide any.

On policing, in the past seven years we have seen a 70% increase in violent crime in Enfield as well as huge cuts in the number of uniformed officers on our streets. There is a relationship between these two things, but there was no mention of that today whatsoever. Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has done everything he possibly can to protect frontline policing, but the Chancellor failed to commit to or even to mention additional funding for London’s police force. This Government are making London less safe for Londoners and tourists—for everybody who lives here—and this in a year in which we have seen five major terrorist attacks. London is less safe under the Tories, and this Budget helps nobody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She is absolutely right. We need to make sure that social media outfits and technology companies in general are subject to the rule of law with regard to libel and identity so that we know who people are, and so that fake accounts cannot troll, bully, mistreat or hound people, which is unacceptable. We should never tolerate that. These companies should pay their fair share of tax and be as tough on terror as we are. They should seek to join and support the Government and this country’s authorities in cracking down on terror, crime and the mistreatment of our fellow people. If they are trading here, they need to respect our laws and our values as a country.

[Joan Ryan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a significant rise in anti-Semitic abuse through social media? We should do something about that disgraceful form of abuse, and the Government should act immediately.

Balancing the Public Finances

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

If Members wish to remove their jackets, they should feel free to do so, and of course their ties—I have removed mine, as you can see.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of balancing the public finances.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this new Parliament, Ms Ryan. This is the first time I have secured a Westminster Hall debate since the general election. If you will forgive the indulgence, it is also a great pleasure to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), in his place. He served with tremendous distinction in the Whips Office, which I had the pleasure of leading after the 2015 general election, and I am pleased to see him in his current role. I look forward to him responding to the debate.

I am conscious that a large number of Members wish to speak, so I will speak for a little less time than I had originally intended. The first thing worth drawing to the attention of the Chamber, however, is how few Opposition Members are present, which I find astounding. To draw some conclusions from the attendance, we can see that the Conservative party and our allies in the Democratic Unionist party believe in balancing the public finances and making the difficult decisions necessary to ensure that we can grow the economy and create jobs. Judging by the turnout on the Opposition Benches, or rather the lack of turnout, the Labour party is clearly not interested in balancing the public finances or making sensible decisions; all that it is interested in is spending other people’s money until it runs out. Whereas, so many Conservatives are here that they are having to move right around the Chamber and take over the other side.

I will probably have to draw my remarks to a close sooner than I had expected, in order to allow other Members to speak, so let me do a quick précis of my argument. We have come a long way since 2010: we have cut the deficit by three quarters; we have had faster economic growth than almost any country in the G7 largest countries; and we have cut unemployment to levels not seen since I was at primary school in 1975. That is incredibly important, because those are not just statistics; they represent real people getting the opportunities to succeed and thrive.

There are things that we should be proud of, and we could and should have talked about them more during the election campaign. I was very pleased to hear the Chancellor’s outstanding speech in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, in which he set out our economic record and our plans for the future. My central message at the conclusion of my speech today will be that although we face difficult decisions and many pressing needs for spending public money, we need to raise that money while keeping taxes low and economic growth moving along. Those are difficult decisions. The Chancellor is the man who must make those decisions, and he must make them in a balanced way, taking into account all the factors, including economic growth. He needs to make those decisions at the Budget in the autumn, and Conservative colleagues should give him our support in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at about 10.30. Given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, I suggest that they limit themselves to a maximum of four minutes, if not a little less. I will not apply a time limit at the moment. We shall see how we go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we are very short on time and that there are a lot of Members who want to speak. I suggest that hon. Members keep their remarks to no more than three minutes, otherwise I will have to introduce a time limit after the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

You are absolutely right—my hon. Friend is right—to point out that we are paying that much in debt interest payments. You will know that more than a quarter of our debt is held overseas, so by my calculations we are spending something like £10 billion a year to other countries for them to spend on their schools and hospitals. My constituents in Harborough will be shocked that we are spending that much to support public services overseas.

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) that he is supposed to address the Chair.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. He is right that when we are paying debt interest overseas, we are paying money elsewhere when it could be spent in this country building up the economy and spent on our priorities.

The central point is that a strong economy is needed to fund strong services. It is all very well to have a long list of priorities on which we would like to spend. Let us be under no doubt that everybody Government Member wants strong public services. We want to increase spending, but that must be done in a responsible way. That money, in order to be spent, has to be raised. If public spending is not balanced, it leads to a weaker economy. That means less money to be spent on our public services, and it means that we are in a weaker positon to withstand the next economic shock when it comes. In due course, there always will be a downturn in the economy and we need to be in a strong position to meet it when it comes. That is the overriding mistake made by the Labour Government.

Living within our means is not an ideological fixation. It is not simply a desire. It is a necessity to ensure that we can protect our public services and spend sensibly for this generation and for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to apply a three-minute limit. That still might mean that not everybody gets in. It is for Members to police it and to go below three minutes—you will not be able to go above the three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. The time limit will now reduce to two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Economies that lose control of their finances lose control of their destiny and that is why it is absolutely right to focus on living within our means. Conservative Members believe that the best way to do that is to power up an enterprise economy. We all hate austerity; we believe in prosperity. We believe in creating businesses and helping them to grow and expand to create the wealth to fund public services so that we can see them grow and develop.

We must be conscious that as a country we need not only to live within our means but to help our lower paid workers to have the means to live. I am proud of what the Government have done with the national living wage because we want well-paid jobs and decent public services. Productivity is the absolute key to higher wages, often for lower paid workers—a good movement, “Be the Business”, has been launched by Charlie Mayfield today. Technical education is at the heart of that, so the Government are putting it to the front. Dealing with extortionate housing costs in London and the wider south-east is also key to the productivity issue, because high housing costs are a drag on the economy. Our national productivity infrastructure fund, focusing on transport, digital, research, investment and housing, is absolutely the right way forward. We should have common purpose across the House; we must all focus on driving up the country’s productivity.

I am proud that, as a result of the hard things that the Government have had to do, the richest 1% are paying more in tax than happened under Labour and that income inequality is at its lowest since 1986—according to the Office for National Statistics, not the Conservative research department. Finally, the Government have taken 75 measures to raise an extra £140 billion in tax.

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Front-Bench spokesmen. If they take eight or nine minutes each, Mr Harper will have one minute at the end.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be a signatory to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman, who is my neighbour, and to support him. As I am sure he knows, some 49% of retail workers surveyed are parents or carers, and their Sunday is special to them. In relation to what has been said about trusting our constituents to make their own decision to work, I am sure my neighbour knows that even in workplaces that have trade union reps to support members, many staff are pressured into not using the Sunday opt-out. In fact, something like a third of shop workers are pressured into working on Sundays, or they will have their working hours cut.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is included in the unholy alliance that, as I have mentioned, has come together on my amendment. She makes a very good and important point. We may have a choice about whether to go to church, shop or spend time with our families. We need to be a voice for people who do not have such a choice, perhaps because of caring or work responsibilities. We need to be very careful about imposing further requirements or obligations on them. That is important, and it is why we suggested having a family impact test. The impact assessment has been published today. The Government twice in parliamentary answers promised me they would do that. We must take the impact on families seriously, as the right hon. Lady says.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me turn to the Minister’s last-minute—indeed, after-the-last-minute—offer to invite local authorities to participate. Why on earth did he not do that in the first place? Let us be clear: there is no offer today for Government Members to vote for pilots, and no way of guaranteeing them. The Bill contains nothing about pilots. Do we take the Minister at his word, given what has gone before us previously on this subject?

[Joan Ryan]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any provision that allows Government Members to pre-empt a decision in the other place, or to offer this strange variant on a deferred Division on a proposal that nobody anywhere—other than those on the Government Front Benches, and possibly not all of them—actually wants?

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Government have had ample opportunity in the Lords—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) reminds me, this provision was not even mentioned in the Lords. It was not in the original Bill, and it was not mentioned until Second Reading, when the Secretary of State announced for the first time that the Bill would cover Sunday trading. The Minister had plenty of time to table amendments then, in Committee, or today, but he chose not to. Why should we believe a word he says?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to accommodate two more speakers, if possible.

[Joan Ryan]

As they say, you may not realise what you’ve got till it’s gone—I think that applies to all of us and not just to you, Mr Speaker. Once our special Sundays are lost, it will be impossible to get them back. Hon. Members often say, “I don’t know which way I am going to vote. I’m going to listen to the debate.” Frankly, I defy any rational person—any Member of this House who has listened to the debate—to explain why they would vote with the Government. If they had really listened to the debate, they would surely support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). We have heard so much information from Populus surveys and USDAW surveys—perhaps I should declare an interest as an USDAW member—showing us that just about everybody is against the changes. Nobody wants them—including, apparently, the Prime Minister before the election—yet here we are.

The changes would be bad for business. All the evidence set out today has demonstrated that, so I will not repeat it. They would be exploitative to shop workers and others who work in the retail sector, who do not want them. The public and consumers do not want them. There is no evidence that anybody wants them, yet the Government have consulted on the deregulation of Sunday trading hours three times in the past four years. It has been somewhat unseemly to see the Government scrabbling around today trying to patch together some kind of last-minute deal that would in no way protect us against deregulation in the future. I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment and to see the end of proposals on this matter for a considerable period to come.

Tax Avoidance and Multinational Companies

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening. I just answered that point by reference to my critique of the Labour Government. I convened the Tax Justice Network campaign meetings in this building, and I have campaigned for 18 years. The FT assessment is that the measures introduced by the Labour Government will reap 10 times as much as anything introduced by this Government.

Let me press on. Last Monday, to get some answers about the Google deal, I tabled an urgent question to the Chancellor, and I am grateful that Mr Speaker granted the question. Typically, the Chancellor failed to turn up and the Minister was left to defend this “victorious” deal. By that time, No. 10 was furiously distancing itself from the Chancellor. Within 72 hours the Google deal had gone from “a major success” to merely “a step forward”, according to No. 10. I see that this weekend the Business Secretary was describing the deal, with masterly understatement, as “not a glorious moment”.

Yesterday Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said:

“It doesn’t feel fair. And in our hearts, I think we all know it isn’t fair.”

I agree wholeheartedly.

During the urgent question discussion last Monday the Minister was specifically asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) whether he knew the rate of tax that Google was paying. He said bluntly, “No.” We heard the assertion that the HMRC calculation of back tax was on the basis of tax levied on profits as a result of an assessment of economic activity. That implies very little economic activity in Google UK. That argument wore a bit thin when it was pointed out that Google employs 2,300 staff in the UK on average earnings of £160,000, and is building a new headquarters in addition to the two it already has.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

May I join the shadow Chancellor in demanding more transparency? I have been contacted by people in my constituency who are concerned that the Government are creating a loophole especially for Google and nobody else. We in the House and in this country deserve full transparency on this deal.

[John McDonnell]

I will come on to the recommendations for future action, which cover my right hon. Friend’s point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

The first point to make is that this is a debate on the operation of the tax law as it stands, not on how people might want it to be, and to be fair to HMRC, it can only collect the tax that is due under the law as it stands, not as how people might want it to be. On reform of this area, there is no reason why we should not debate these matters. However, with regard to a move towards taxing profits on the basis of sales—there is a perfectly respectable case for reform in that direction—I would be worried about the impact on, for example, the UK’s creative and scientific sectors. I have mentioned the video games sector, and one could also look at pharmaceuticals. There are a number of areas where the UK—businesses in our constituencies—would lose out in those circumstances, so I would be a little wary about it.

[Joan Ryan]

May I bring the Minister back to the fundamental point about transparency? It would make this debate much easier and more useful if he published the details of this deal in full so that we can be sure that we are not talking about mates’ rates and a special tax loophole for Google.

[Mr Gauke]

I will come on to transparency, but let me first return to this Government’s record on changing domestic law and leading the way in updating the international system.

This Government have led internationally on the G20 and OECD base erosion and profit-shifting project, making the international tax rules fit for the 21st century. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular, took on highly prominent roles in initiating those discussions and taking them forward through the G20 and the OECD. The outcome will be to level the playing field among businesses, give tax authorities more effective tools to tackle aggressive planning, and help us better align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activities and value creation. This is a major step forward in addressing the underlying causes of aggressive tax avoidance.

We have been at the forefront of implementing this agenda, acting swiftly to change the rules on hybrid mismatches and country-by-country reporting. Because we consider it important not to rely solely on international rules, we have also legislated domestically to introduce a world-leading measure to address the contrived shifting of profit from this country—the diverted profits tax. The diverted profits tax targets companies that divert profits from the UK, principally those with substantial activities in the UK who are trying to avoid creating a UK permanent establishment. Under our rules, those companies either declare the correct amount of profits in the UK and pay the full amount of corporation tax on them, or risk being charged a higher amount of diverted profits tax at a rate of 25%. By the end of this Parliament, the diverted profits tax will raise an extra £1.3 billion, both directly and as a result of associated behavioural changes. The tax is already having that effect, and multinationals will pay more corporation tax as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

The most bizarre feature of the row over the past 10 days is that both Google and the Chancellor thought they had landed a public relations coup. Frankly, the arrogance of Google and the hopelessness of our Government take some beating. Just look at Google’s results announced this week. It now claims to be the world’s most valuable company. It claims with pride that it has cut its tax rate from 18% to 5%. If we look at Eric Schmidt’s own earnings—the man at the top is very proud of Google’s tax structure, saying “it’s just capitalism”—he was paid £76 million in 2014 alone. That is the equivalent of well over half of what Google paid the British public for all the money it has made out of the British public over 10 years.

[Joan Ryan]

Is my right hon. Friend concerned that the Google agreement could present a threat to future tax revenues by setting a very dangerous precedent?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely. The Minister talks about the work done by the Public Accounts Committee. The law is not a complete ass. I do not believe that. When the National Audit Office looked at, I think, 10 cases—I will be corrected if I am wrong—it found three where HMRC had not abided by its own rules. Every time something like this happens, it damages British jobs and British businesses—nobody else. We have definite proof that a sweetheart deal was entered into with Goldman Sachs.

Draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015 Draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Finance Platforms) Regulations 2015

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 General Committees

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I have only three questions, so I am not able to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West on quantity. Nevertheless, I hope the quality will appeal to both him and the Minister.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, overall, the regulations are welcome. We all recognise how important SMEs are in our local areas and to the UK economy, and we want to do anything we can to support them. The Minister mentioned the removal of existing barriers as the reason for the regulations. I presume the main banks do a detailed risk factor analysis. Can he reassure me that in reducing the barriers, presumably through referrals to other lenders with different risk-based analyses, we will not be encouraging SMEs to take an excessive risk and drive themselves to the wall when they might not have done so otherwise?

My other two points are related. The impact assessment says that there has been a voluntary scheme of a similar nature, but it does not seem to have had much success. Will the Minister say why it failed? Was it simply that the main banks were not doing what they had signed up to do, or were there other reasons? If so, how have they been taken into account in the new regulations?

On page 3 of the impact assessment there is a section on improving transparency. In what seems to me a sensible move, it says that the Government have secured

“a voluntary agreement with the major lenders to publish bank-by-bank lending data across 10,000 postcodes, enabling smaller lenders, both banks and non-banks, to see where lending is low and pursue new business in these areas.”

Why is that going to be voluntary if other voluntary schemes on similar matters have had little success? Would it not have been better to make the scheme compulsory?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

To be clear about interest rates, decisions are of course for the Bank of England’s independent Monetary Policy Committee. None the less, the policy of addressing the need to reduce our deficit, for example, helped to ensure that we did not see a premature increase in market rates, which may well have fed through into bank lending.

I do not intend to digress too much on to the policies on RBS and Lloyds over the past five and a half years, other than to restate my earlier point that RBS and Lloyds had to decide how to achieve the objectives both of ensuring that their finances were on a sound footing, and to some extent deleveraging, and of providing support to small businesses. The Government supported the meeting of both objectives. Those financial institutions found themselves in a difficult situation—I do not suggest that we detain the Committee with a lengthy discussion of why they were in that position, but none the less they were.

The implementation guide, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West mentioned, has been completed by the CRAs, banks and the Treasury. It has not yet been published, but it is being used to help banks and CRAs implement the credit information policies. I believe it should be published shortly, but I cannot be more precise.

On the point about Handelsbanken and designations being based on market share, not being designated will help Handelsbanken to compete more effectively with the largest banks. It will benefit from the regulations; I do not think they will be to its disadvantage.

The definition of a finance platform is in section 7 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West will of course appreciate, it is normal legislative drafting practice not to repeat such a definition in the regulations made under the Act; but for those studying the debate and scratching their heads, I am happy to clarify that point.

On the question of why the provision of credit data on companies is not a regulated activity, the Government legislate for activities to be regulated under the regime set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 only when there is evidence that it is required. There is no such evidence in the case of providing data on companies. Regulating the activity under the regime in question would not solve the problems I mentioned earlier, but we believe that the regulations will.

The hon. Member for Enfield North—

[Joan Ryan]

Right hon.

[Mr Gauke]

Apologies; the right hon. Lady raised a point about voluntary and compulsory schemes. The voluntary systems were not 100% effective, which is why we are regulating today for the sharing of data. Other voluntary schemes, such as postcode lending, have been successful and do not require a legislative option. It is a question of being pragmatic as to which voluntary arrangements are working and which are not.

I will check to see whether there are any further points I can add in answer to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West.

[Joan Ryan]

Will the Minister say a few words about how monitoring of the voluntary scheme will continue? In relation to the rationale for intervention, there were 50 responses to the consultation on the matters that the Government want to regulate, which does not sound like many when we think how many SMEs there are. Will the Minister go back to SMEs and others to discuss where lending is or is not happening under the voluntary scheme? Will he go to lenders other than the main banks, to assess their view of the information that we get from that scheme?

[Mr Gauke]

I suppose the first point to make is that SMEs understandably, and perhaps rightly, tend to be focused on their business and do not necessarily always respond to Government consultation. That might explain the numbers. All I can say to the right hon. Lady is that all such matters must be kept under review. When voluntary arrangements work, so be it, but when there is evidence that they do not, the Government are willing to take action, as we have seen.

As I said, I will deal in writing with any points that I have inadvertently failed to address in response to questions raised today. I hope that this debate has been productive, that it has provided right hon. and hon. Members with some comfort on any concerns that they have, and that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015.

DRAFT SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESS (FINANCE PLATFORMS) REGULATIONS 2015

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Small and Medium Sized Business (Finance Platforms) Regulations 2015.—(Mr Gauke.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage will be taken out of income tax altogether and kept out of income tax. That contrasts with the position in 2010 when people earning just £6,500 were paying income tax. Those people have recently seen an increase in their marginal rate from 10% to 20%.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Raising the personal allowance is not a panacea; it will do nothing to address the deep levels of poverty among the working poor. Is the Minister concerned at all at recent Office for National Statistics figures showing that 6 million jobs pay less than the living wage?

[Mr Gauke]

The best way to address poverty is to ensure that we have a strong economy—jobs growing, increasing productivity, making sure that we have the business investment that we need. This Government are delivering a pro-business approach that is good for job creation, which is why there are more people in work than we have seen ever before.