Coronavirus: Employment Support

Debate between John Glen and Peter Dowd

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. I made clear in my response the urgency of the Government’s deliberations on this—it is absolutely at the top of everything we are doing. Ministers are working flat out, 24/7, to look at all the options.

My right hon. Friend raises the specific anxieties of businesses. I recognise that the package of measures that we have put out—with respect to statutory sick pay, easier access to universal credit and employment and support allowance, the business rates relief, the small business grant facility, the local authority hardship funds and the HMRC forbearance measures—will for some not feel sufficient at this point. However, he will also know from his experience in government that it is very important that when the Government announce the measures that we wish to take to assist with supporting employees, they need to be effective and need to work. So I say to the House and to my right hon. Friend: be in no doubt that all options are being examined. We are looking at models that exist in other jurisdictions and when, very imminently, the Chancellor comes to the House, we want to be sure that what we announce will be effective.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is now six and a half weeks since the first cases of coronavirus were reported in the UK. For over a month we have known about the substantial risk that coronavirus poses to the economy and to workers, yet the Government have announced no plan to protect jobs and wages—no full plan for employment support. We are all—all of us—inundated with so many questions, and I have just four of those questions to ask.

People are asking us: why, for example, have Denmark, which had its first coronavirus case on 27 February, and New Zealand, which had its first case on 28 February, four weeks after our first case, both announced comprehensive job protection plans, while we have announced nothing to secure people’s jobs and wages? Given that, the second question is: what consideration has been given to the models in Denmark and Austria, which the Economic Secretary referred to, which involve the Government paying the bulk of people’s wages in exchange for job guarantees?

The third question is: why, when the Chancellor announced the loan guarantee on Tuesday, did the Government not tie those loans into an undertaking from business that no one would be laid off? The fourth question: will the Minister accept that freelancers will need additional support if they do not qualify for statutory sick pay? For example, in the culture sector we have as many as 2 million people, hundreds of thousands of whom may be affected.

The country deserves answers to those questions as a matter of urgency. We will continue to ask these questions not as a matter of political point scoring or ideology, but to ensure that we have a Government response that properly protects the public and matches the scale of the crisis affecting us here and now, not just next week.

[John Glen]

It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise those points, and he is right to draw attention to the experience in Denmark. Throughout this crisis, the Government have acted on the best scientific and health advice, and that has clearly had to move over time. That advice has been challenged and questioned, and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have made decisions based on the best advice available. Consequent to the health advice, which is clearly motivated to relieve as much pressure as possible on the NHS, there are other issues that we are dealing with urgently, and sequentially we are offering that advice as urgently as we can in different domains.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Danish experience, and we are looking at the furlough system. We are looking at the proportion of support that is available, and we are also looking at the German system. In the last significant recession that happened in 2009-10—that is broadly the comparator that we could use—only 3% of German firms were helped. We are aware of what is happening in the US, and we are aware of the proposals that have been put forward by various think-tanks this morning. We are looking thoroughly at all those options, but it is very important that we have a system that delivers the support that is required to employers.

We have extended the coronavirus business interruption loan to up to £5 million. It is clear that there will be no interest payable in the first six months and no fees, and obviously we expect businesses to use that to support their employees during this time.

Mortgage Prisoners

Debate between John Glen and Peter Dowd

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

As I have tried to set out, I am not the arbiter of this specific issue, and it would be wrong for me to be drawn into the outcome before the consultation has concluded. That is imminent, however, as is the implementation of the solution.

[Peter Dowd]

I completely understand where the Minister is coming from, but it would be helpful if, at some point—not today; I accept that—he could set out the catalogue of metrics that will be used to ensure that these regulations, this interpretation, whatever it is, are operating practically within six, 12 or 18 months.

[John Glen]

That is a reasonable point to make. This intervention has to be meaningful and it has to deal with the problem of mortgage prisoners. I am very clear about that, and we in the Treasury will need to look carefully at how we evaluate this. As I was saying, I see plenty of innovation across the mortgage market and I look forward to seeing what affordable options lenders can offer to mortgage prisoners who are looking to switch.

Let me turn to the Government’s sales of mortgage books to purchasers that are not active lenders. Much of this afternoon’s debate has focused on the firms that purchase these mortgage books. It is regrettable that the Government have not received any reasonable bids from active lenders, with feedback suggesting that they have limited appetite for these loans. However, I would like to make it clear to the House that the administrators of these mortgage books must be FCA-regulated, regardless of whether they are active lenders. Any consumer whose mortgage is held by one of these firms has full recourse to FCA protections, including treatment in accordance with the FCA’s “treating customers fairly” principles, and the ability to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

I have heard the comments about borrowers having their reversion rates drastically increased. To safeguard against this during asset sales, the Government have put in place contractual protections that have been enhanced to ensure that the terms and conditions of the original loans are honoured and, in the latest asset sale, to ensure that future rate rises are in line with the rates charged by the largest active lenders. This means that a customer will be treated broadly the same as if their mortgage was with an active lender, with payments in accordance with their original contract terms.

EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost

Debate between John Glen and Peter Dowd

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a number of Budget representations on that point. What I can confirm is that, when the sum of £35 billion to £39 billion was agreed, it was agreed on three principles: the UK would not make its payments sooner than it would otherwise have done; it would be based on the actual rather than the forecast; and it would mean that we would include all benefits as a member state. I recognise the wide range of concerns in the House, including those raised by my right hon. Friend, but we are at a delicate stage of the negotiations and the Prime Minister will be speaking to the House shortly.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has some brass neck. He spent eight years being a cheerleader for austerity and he comes to the House today and says that; it is unbelievable. Amid the Tory quarrelling, the Prime Minister’s negotiations appear to succumb to a new failure every day. She has stood staring at the menu for two years while the Cabinet devours itself. It now seems that it may take a bit longer for her to make up her mind, demanding that the EU give further time in relation to the transition period. What we cannot fathom is how the Government are unable to negotiate our exit within the agreed period, begging instead to make it longer.

Humiliatingly, I have to say, we hear that 95% of the agreement is done, as though that is supposed to reassure us. Perhaps I may remind the Government that 95% of the Titanic’s journey was completed successfully. Meanwhile, the Government have gone from discussing a backstop to discussing a backstop to a backstop, to requesting an extension to the transition. These do not signal a Government who are about to emerge victoriously.

Let me ask a couple of questions, if this 95% deal is done. First, on the EU’s trade policy, during the transition, the common external tariff and customs regime will continue to apply to the UK, but third countries will have no legal obligation to continue to treat the UK as if it were a member state. Therefore, what trilateral discussions have the Government had with both the EU and third country partners, such as Mexico, South Korea, Switzerland and all the other countries with which the EU has preferential trading agreements in place, to ensure that the UK will continue to benefit from these arrangements during the transition period? Secondly, what progress have the Government made towards acceding to agreements facilitating trade, such as the pan-Euro Mediterranean convention that facilitates diagonal cumulation of origin, during the transition period and in any deal thereafter?

These matters, along with the question of the wider trade in goods, are easily resolvable with the transition period that has already been agreed. If the Government had got their act together, there would not be talk of additional time. The only thing that is costing the Government is this useless Government.

[John Glen]

It is difficult to discern the precise questions there, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The Government are in a negotiation and there are a number of issues that are not yet resolved. With respect to the final state around our future freedom to trade, those are matters that will be reported on to this House before there is a meaningful vote. So he needs to be patient a little longer as we move through that last 5% and deal with those matters.

Banking Sector Failures

Debate between John Glen and Peter Dowd

Thursday 12th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I will take the opportunity to correct him. The Government do not have a 70% shareholding. We have a 62.4% shareholding. We do not have control of the day-to-day running of the bank, in the same way as the Scottish Government do not have control of Prestwick Glasgow Airport, yet they have a complete shareholding in it. We need to be real. There is a difference between ownership and day-to-day control. I want to address the practical issues because our constituents want to know what is being done to deal with these challenges. Before I go into that, I want to acknowledge that in previous debates I was challenged by Members from constituencies in Scotland. I will visit Scotland for four or five days at the end of August during the recess to address specifically the issues around rural banking. I went to look at the mobile banking units of one of the banks in Derbyshire in the previous recess, and I take very seriously the concerns about how effectively they function in terms of support for disabled people.

[Peter Dowd]

What sort of message does it send to banks when all these closures are happening and in 2016 the Government decide to cut, for example, the banking levy from £3 billion to £1.3 billion, sequentially, year on year? The Minister can try to duck the issue, but he gives a bung to the banks while they close their branches, and that is not acceptable.

[John Glen]

I want to try to address our constituents’ concerns about bank closures and what the Government are doing to see that their services are provided. The Post Office and the banking industry have a commercial agreement that enables 99% of the UK’s personal and 95% of the UK’s business customers to carry out their day-to-day banking. I am concerned about the effectiveness of that arrangement, so I am determined that public awareness of those services should be greater. I am pleased that UK Finance and the Post Office have responded to my call for further action, particularly when the last bank in town closes, to make sure that the transfer of responsibility—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am happy to look carefully at the issues and the respective responsibilities and interaction between them that the hon. Gentleman raises. I fully accept the sensible point he makes.

I want to return to the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. Several specific cases were raised and my hon. Friend spoke passionately about his constituent’s case, which is illustrative of many of the experiences that sadly occur. Following my meeting, I received a letter from Ross McEwan in May that said that his complaints handling team would be happy to discuss constituency cases with Members. I encourage all Members to do so. I want to put this on the record. I particularly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling to raise his constituency case with the team. I am keen to understand what sort of response he gets and how satisfactory the process is.

As to the comments of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) about the sale of RBS shares, I am not one to enter into unnecessary partisanship in such discussions, because the issues are important, and I generally welcome the tone of the debate, but he must acknowledge that when the shares were purchased by the Government for £5.02 in 2008 it was not a rational economic choice. It was necessary for the Brown Government to secure the banking system. Therefore, to point out the difference in price, after the Government had taken advice from those who are stewards of the Government’s interest, based on value for money, is not really rational. Most consumers would not have purchased shares at the time in question; it was for the good of the nation.

[Peter Dowd]

Okay, so if we push the bank aside and forget that, how does the Minister explain the loss to the taxpayer in the sale of the Post Office, which was another billion or two pounds—or is that irrelevant as well? How does he explain the reduction of 26% in corporation tax for banks and other corporations, to 19%, when people in the Gallery cannot get a penny out of the Government?

[John Glen]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has conceded the point on RBS. I want to focus on banks, and I was responding specifically on the matter of RBS.

I want to set out what the Government have done to address the issues that came to the fore during the financial crisis, because the regulatory framework and what has evolved over the past 10 years is a foundation for some of the outstanding challenges that we need to resolve. Since the crisis, the Government have reformed the UK system of financial regulation for the benefit of the industry and the people who rely on it. We have bolstered standards across the sector and taken strides to restore public trust in financial services. I acknowledge that there is more work to be done, and I shall come specifically to the issues raised in the report of the all-party group, and in other work. We have regulators armed with comprehensive powers and responsibilities co-operating to identify and address risks across the financial sector. The Financial Stability Board has praised the UK for its successful transition to a new regulatory regime, and the International Monetary Fund has applauded the UK’s more resilient system. We have implemented reforms to improve individual accountability in the financial services sector, and that includes the introduction of the senior managers and certification regime, which promotes individual responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) set out a list of individuals about whom he has outstanding concerns; and it must be right to hold people to account. Where evidence exists for individuals having behaved criminally or in a way that needs further analysis, it must be brought forward. I understand that the shadow cast over the issue by outstanding cases needs to be resolved by the regulator. However, the SMCR promotes individual responsibility, holding senior managers to account for misconduct that occurs on their watch. It ensures that individuals at all levels can be held to appropriate standards of conduct. Both those things were key recommendations of the post-crisis Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The SMCR was implemented for all banks, building societies, credit unions and Prudential Regulation Authority-designated investment firms in 2016. The regime will be extended to cover insurance firms from December 2018, and all other Financial Conduct Authority-regulated firms in December 2019.

I want now to talk about the core issue of SME lending. Despite significant improvements to the system at large, I am acutely aware that concerns remain about misconduct within the sector.