Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) for bringing this private Member’s Bill to the Chamber today. As was apparent from her speech, she has a lot of experience of working on environmental issues, and I appreciate the work she has put into the Bill so far. It is not perfect, and I look forward to it being improved as it progresses through Parliament. I wish simply to highlight the issues where I think I can support the Bill, to flag up some issues from my own constituency and examples of the good work that co-operatives undertake, and to give a summary of what I see as the key aspects of the Bill.

Co-operatives and community benefit societies are long-standing in our communities. We are told that co-ops are democratically owned and controlled by their members and that they exist to meet common needs and aspirations, in contrast to companies that are arguably more focused on the payment of dividends to shareholders. We are also told that co-ops are more about sharing power and wealth. Clearly, there will be a divergence of views on some of those statements—some will agree, some will not—but I am in no doubt about the worth of co-ops to our economy and wider society. The contribution of co-ops is clear and their importance cannot be understated. Importantly, I believe that co-ops should be part of how we build back better after covid-19.

There are lessons to be learned from how co-ops do business. Last year, co-ops contributed £38 billion in turnover and provided work for almost a quarter of a million people. While only 43% of companies survive their first five years, more than 72% of co-op start-ups continue to flourish. In 2019, there were more than 7,200 co-ops operating across the United Kingdom in a range of sectors of the economy. The ownership of co-operatives is a hugely important consideration in this debate. It is argued that sharing ownership in co-ops gives people and communities a stake in the operation of the business and encourages greater engagement, interest and concern in the long-term interests of the business. This applies as much to customer or employee owners of large retail businesses as it does to local co-ops, which together own valued local enterprises such as pubs, football clubs and shops. I am sure we all have examples from our own constituencies of successfully operating co-operatives.

In rural areas such as my own, in the Scottish borders, the agricultural sector is particularly prominent and important. More than £7.9 billion of co-operative turnover comes from farming in the UK annually. There are lots of examples of successful co-operatives in my constituency.  Growing up on a farm, I know that the cost of modern farm machinery can be significant. Organisations such as Progressive Agri near Coldstream help farmers to purchase machinery and equipment as part of a group. There are other agricultural co-ops, such as Scottish Borders Produce, which is a cross-border co-operative with members from across the Scottish Borders, East Lothian and Northumberland. It specialises in the environmentally responsible growing and processing of top-quality vining peas for the retail frozen market. This green shares Bill would give them and others like them a means of generating external finance in order to make substantial and environmentally friendly investments and expand their operations. There is evidence to suggest that sharing ownership in such co-ops also boosts productivity, by making employees and suppliers more likely to work harder to support their business. Studies have shown that the commitment ownership brings boosts productivity, because people are invested emotionally and financially in the business.

Co-operatives offer a dynamic solution, rooting long-term social value within financial value. Their involvement in a successful and sustainable future UK economy is vital, but why are there not more of these co-operative-type models? In 2020, they make up less than 1% of the total number of businesses. As we look towards the post-covid world and consider how to make businesses more robust, more resilient and fairer, the answer could be a more co-operative economy. In addition to the clear economic importance and resilience of co-operatives and community benefit societies, their focus on localism and wider social benefits aligns with our goals for sustainable development. Advocates of co-operatives emphasise that these types of business models are a more sustainable form of business due to an evasion of the desire for immediate profits and, instead, a focus on longer-term goals. That is clearly a point for debate and discussion, but there is no doubt that co-ops and alternative models of business have a role to play in our economy.

The Committee on Climate Change emphasised the importance of an environmentally sustainable economy in its 2019 report, “Net Zero: the UK’s contribution to stopping global warming”. The report highlighted the importance of the UK providing an attractive green investment environment, noting that Government success in providing clear and stable mechanisms that attract sufficient volumes of low capital will be key to the overall success in reaching a net zero greenhouse gas target. The Committee concluded that the UK is well placed to lead globally on the development of products to finance low-carbon investment. Again, co-operatives and community benefit societies provide one mechanism to achieve that.

However, despite the clear possibility of co-operatives and community benefit societies enhancing the level of environmentally sustainable investment in this country, there are limitations on their ability to raise external capital in a way that is consistent with their founding principles, and thus their growth. The Bill seeks to address that. It would arguably allow co-operatives and community benefit societies to gain powers to raise finance by issuing redeemable green shares to external investors. In turn, any capital raised would be required to be invested in environmentally sustainable projects. We have heard from other Members during the debate about how we define environmentally sustainable projects. Where is the line between a green project and something that might be just more of a commercial initiative? The Bill will need to clarify that as it progresses.

Without the Bill, co-ops rely on their members’ capital to fund their operations. Withdrawable shares are bought by members and shares are limited to a maximum of £100,000 for an individual stakeholder, with the aim of preventing co-operatives relying on only a small number of their members or a single member having excessive financial clout. The introduction of redeemable green shares facilitated by the Bill might provide a solution, allowing co-operatives and community benefit societies to raise new sources of finance.

[Gareth Davies]

It is undeniable that the climate change agenda is critical to the investment landscape. Does he therefore agree that it is a little confusing that green shares will be limited to external investors and that they should also be available to members?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I agree that there is some uncertainty around that. This is one of the issues that needs to be flushed out during parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill, so that we have as much clarity as possible on that point, but he is right. As I said, we need to be sure that any investment will be in the green environmental projects that we want to see promoted by the Bill.

[Anna McMorrin]

I want to clarify the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies). Actually, members can invest in a project, which would be the green shares, because that is what co-operatives do—they are wholly owned by the members. This is unlocking investment from outside as a bigger investment called a green share. I just wanted to correct the hon. Member.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point, but the fact that the hon. Lady had to make it suggests that it is not entirely clear in the Bill. Hopefully, during the Bill’s progress, we can get clarity on the face of the Bill about how that will work in practice.

It is argued that these redeemable shares are important on two levels. The first is the important benefits of environmentally sustainable investment—for example, in the retrofitting of existing housing association homes or the expansion of renewable energy co-operatives. The second is the benefits to co-operatives themselves. Co-operatives UK is just one advocate of such redeemable shares, noting that they could be

“particularly useful for larger societies raising significant equity investment from individual and institutional non-user investor members.”

It notes that redeemable shares

“provide a straightforward and clear exit route for shareholders, just as withdrawal does, but would be fully under the control of the society.”

This Bill will not only allow co-ops and community associations to raise private investment capital for environmentally sustainable purposes, but it also has profound wider benefits. Locally, our communities and economies would benefit from the development of green jobs and skills, and the Bill might be part of that. In my constituency, there is clear evidence that that is happening already, but we need to do more to facilitate it. More widely, we could see benefits in the form of cheaper, greener energy; warmer, more energy-efficient homes; and cheaper, more sustainably and locally sourced food. For my constituents and the rural economy in the Scottish borders, the Bill could encourage such initiatives.

Equally important are the safeguards in the Bill. Such protections prevent the undermining of the co-ops’ or societies’ ethos or their conversion into commercial companies through the issuing of green shares. Upholding the ethos of co-operatives and community benefit societies is crucial to the success of the Bill and the aims behind it and to sustain the longevity of these societies. I am confident that those objectives can be achieved through the provisions in the Bill, which include limiting voting rights to one vote, regardless of the value or number of shares held, limiting the rights of investors to the assets of the society in the event of its liquidation, limiting the ability of investors to de-mutualise and, lastly, enabling societies to remove the right to vote for their conversion into a company.

[Anthony Mangnall]

My hon. Friend spoke well about the importance of localism and of co-ops, which all our constituencies benefit from. Does he fear that if we open these organisations up to external investors, we will water down the focus of localism?

[John Lamont]

Yes, absolutely, that will be one of the challenges. In my experience, the benefits of these co-operatives and societies has been the local engagement, and the danger is that outside influence could change that ethos and approach.

As other Members have noted, the Bill’s foundations are in using investment for wider good. This is an important step forward, in terms of shining a spotlight on this type of business model and highlighting the importance of environmentally sustainable investment, but more needs to be done.

Last year, a study commissioned by the Department for International Development examined public demand in the UK for sustainable development opportunities. That was the most comprehensive study of the UK public’s demand for such opportunities, understanding whether people want the impact on people and the planet to be considered in investment decisions. Generally, the survey found that 68% of UK savers want their investments to consider the impact on people and the planet alongside financial performance.

Since 2012, sustainable investments have grown by 107% annually as an investment strategy. There is significant growth of individuals who invest sustainably in companies, organisations and funds with the purpose of generating measurable, social and environmental impact alongside financial return. Impacts are spread across various sectors from renewable energy and climate change, to health, safety and community development. The Bill arguably fulfils some of those desires and pivots towards a more sustainable future, unlocking new finance sources through the green shares, which must be invested in an environmentally sustainable way.

As investment trends change, policy such as this drives that change in our culture to adopting socially responsible practices in businesses and industry, and encourages adaptation towards a sustainable investment environment. I hope that this is a step towards changing the sustainability outlooks of other companies and business models. Although, of course, protecting lives and suppressing the coronavirus has been the priority for the Government over the past few months, as the virus has devastated many of our communities, that is not to say that we should put the climate crisis on the back burner; that must remain our priority.

As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), the UK has played a world-leading role in tackling climate change. I challenge some of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff North, the sponsor of this Bill. The transition to clean growth for the UK has demonstrated that we are one of the pioneers in this area. We are the first country to legislate to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050, and the fastest in the G20 to cut emissions.

At the same time, the Environment Bill is being introduced to protect and improve the environment for future generations, enshrining in law environmental principles and legally binding targets. The first progress report of the Government’s ambitious 25-year environment plan found that 90% of the priority actions have been delivered or are on track to be delivered. Coal power stations will be completely shut down by 2025, if not 2024. Glasgow will host COP26, coronavirus allowing, putting Britain at the heart of the world’s efforts to combat climate change. We are currently on track to protect 4 million sq km of ocean across our overseas territories before the end of 2020. These are huge achievements in themselves, and I hope the hon. Lady will acknowledge that we are making significant progress, notwithstanding her comments earlier.

However, I am all too aware that there is a need to accelerate work to protect the environment. Innovative ideas to make it more affordable and more accessible to finance environmentally friendly investments are to be welcomed and studied closely, and this Bill gives us that opportunity. Through green shares, we can begin to allow local communities to rise to the climate change challenge and see more level playing fields between co-operatives, community benefit societies and their private competitors.

The Bill also presents itself as an opportunity to aid a recovery from the pandemic in a greener, more sustainable and more resilient way. There are extremely difficult times ahead, but we must look to the future and consider the green jobs and skills that we should be able to facilitate and create as part of our green recovery.

Just last week, in my own constituency, plans for 50 new jobs were approved in the coastal town of Eyemouth. These jobs will come from the new maintenance base for an offshore wind farm off the Fife coast. Providing skilled jobs or improving towns and villages in other ways, such as in Eyemouth, must be how we tackle climate change. Not only does that ensure that no one is left behind, but it helps to persuade those who are less convinced of the merits of such projects that that is the way forward. Co-ops have a huge opportunity here to play a big part in providing jobs and community benefits.

To conclude, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff North again on bringing forward the green shares Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress, I look forward to seeing it improved, and I look forward to hearing the other contributions to the debate.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is an absolute honour and a privilege to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this SNP Opposition day debate. The SNP motion calls for an extension to the transition period for negotiations with the European Union. It is important that we are absolutely clear what the motives are for the SNP calling for that extension to the transition period. It is not about protecting Scotland’s economy. It is not about assisting the economic recovery after the coronavirus pandemic. It is all about creating further uncertainty and constitutional chaos to assist in the nationalist dream of breaking up the United Kingdom. That is the SNP’s top priority. That is its only priority. That, in fact, is the only reason that many SNP Members got involved in politics in the first place—[Interruption.] I am pleased that they are nodding in agreement. I am pleased that they are agreeing with me—we agree on something at last. Any proposal from the separatists should be considered in that context. The SNP is aggravating on Brexit simply to push its independence obsession.

There is no doubt that the impact of the coronavirus will be significant on Scotland’s and the UK’s economy, but the answer is not to add further uncertainty to Scotland’s businesses with further dither and delay on Brexit. Businesses want certainty so that they can plan for Scotland’s and the UK’s future outside the European Union. Businesses are already preparing for life outside the EU at the end of 2020. The last thing they need or want is the further uncertainty that has been advocated by the SNP today, so I fully support the UK Government’s commitment not to extend the transition period at the end of 2020, because that would simply risk further economic damage to Scotland’s economy.

I also fully endorse the massive support of more than £13 billion that this UK Government have pumped into Scotland so far during the covid-19 outbreak. This includes nearly £5 billion in furlough payments, £1 billion for the job retention scheme, the kick-start scheme, the VAT cuts, the eat out to help out scheme, nearly £1 billion in the self-employed income support scheme, hundreds of millions of pounds in business loans and increases to benefits, plus £4.6 billion in Barnett consequentials. That is a £4.6 billion boost to the Scottish Government’s budget during this covid-19 outbreak. I know that some in the SNP, including the Scottish Government’s Finance Minister, Kate Forbes, like to pretend that this support does not exist unless the Scottish Government logo is branded all over it, but if Scotland was no longer in the United Kingdom, the safety net of support that the UK can provide during this pandemic and other crises would not have been there for other parts of these islands or, indeed, for Scotland anymore.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member and I have disagreed numerous times about the UK’s place in the European Union and what we should do about that, but does he share my confusion about why a party that is so intent on dragging Scotland from one valuable union—indeed, the most successful economic union in history—is so intent on using another to do it?

[John Lamont]

I completely agree. The points that the SNP’s Westminster leader made earlier could have been made by anybody during the campaign about whether we should leave or remain in the EU; Nigel Farage would be proud of the arguments that he articulated. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is nodding wholeheartedly; it was a very good Farage argument that was put forward by Mr Blackford.

Let me move on to reiterate the support that has been made available by the UK Government and what that means from a practical perspective for Scots. These are not abstract sums of money that have no bearing on everyday lives in Scotland; these are people’s jobs and livelihoods, and the economic wellbeing of our families. Some 800,000 jobs in Scotland have been saved so far during the pandemic, highlighting the strength of our Union. The coronavirus job retention scheme has furloughed 628,000 Scottish jobs, and the UK Government have spent £425 million on supporting 146,000 self-employed people in Scotland through the self-employment income support scheme.

Of course, when talking about jobs, it is worth remembering that nearly four times as many jobs in Scotland are linked to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom as with the European Union. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that around 545,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by demand for our goods and services from the rest of the UK. That is why it is so important that we do everything we can to protect the strength of the UK single market, ensuring that businesses across the UK can continue to trade easily. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK are worth £51.2 billion, against £16.6 billion in EU exports. Whether they are in my constituency in the Scottish borders or in Eastleigh, West Bromwich, Brecon or Dudley, our businesses should be able to trade freely in every part of Britain.

The importance of the UK internal market is why the suggestion from Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that she may close the Scotland-England border or impose quarantine restrictions on people from England is so damaging to Scotland and to our economy. After the First Minister’s announcement, I had tourism businesses, B&Bs and hotels contact me to report that their customers from the rest of the UK had started to cancel their bookings because they were so worried about the border being closed and quarantine restrictions being imposed. That should concern us all, because overnight trips from the rest of the UK were worth nearly £3 billion to Scotland in 2018.

To compound matters, we had the horrific scenes on the Scottish-English border in my constituency, on the A1 north of Berwick, of nationalist protesters shouting—and I quote—“Stay the F out” at English people travelling into Scotland. These racist protesters have admitted taking inspiration from the division stoked by the SNP politicians. They were inspired by comments by SNP politicians. One of the protesters has been pictured with Nicola Sturgeon and other senior SNP figures—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it cannot be allowed to stand that the hon. Gentleman effectively accuses SNP Members of stoking racism. The SNP condemns unreservedly any kind of anti-Englishness or any kind of racism directed at people from south of the border.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] Please do not talk so loudly while I am talking. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) can heckle other people, but he cannot heckle me. Well, he can try. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) knows that his point of order is not a point for the Chair, but a point of debate. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) will give way when he is ready to give way, and I look forward to hearing the retort from the hon. Member for Glasgow North.

[John Lamont]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to take an intervention—don’t you worry—but I want to conclude this important point about the completely unacceptable behaviour towards our neighbours, friends and family members trying to cross the border between Scotland and England, coming into my constituency to work, to see family members and to visit friends. Nationalist protesters with “Yes” banners were shouting abuse at them. That is totally unacceptable.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

rose—

[John Lamont]

I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member that she will condemn that type of behaviour.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would like to say to the hon. Member, who has made a number of allegations, that the SNP, as he knows, does not have any truck with racism in any of its forms. He seems to suggest that the SNP is an anti-English party; if it makes a country racist to seek self-government, then the other 190 members of the United Nations are all racist countries. The First Minister’s granny is English, so what possible motivation could the hon. Gentleman have for these hysterical comments? If he is condemning any analysis that suggests that borders may perhaps be temporarily closed to control this virus, perhaps he would like to comment on the practice that has been adopted by Australia, which is doing the same thing between states.

[John Lamont]

The fact that the hon. Lady refused to condemn that behaviour on the border speaks for itself. Similarly, the delay from the First Minister of Scotland to condemn that behaviour also caused great concern, not just in my constituency but across Scotland. That is not the Scotland I represent, and it is not what we are about. That behaviour on the border is unacceptable, and we should condemn it.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am listening carefully to what he is saying about the situation on the border between England and Scotland. As a border MP representing an English seat that has a border with Wales, I can say that we in Shropshire have also seen real difficulties and problems in our community as a result of Cardiff pulling further and further away from London, which causes confusion for border communities such as mine.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point. As the Minister described so well, in these times of crisis, as a nation—every part of the nation, whether it be Wales or Scotland or England—we should be coming together to tackle those challenges, not having foul-mouthed nationalist protesters standing at the borders shouting abuse at our English friends and neighbours.

I want to develop the economic point. We can see the economic damage that can be caused to Scotland by statements made by nationalist politicians when they deter people from travelling to Scotland. Even before the current crisis, the SNP’s record of managing Scotland’s economy has been extremely poor. The SNP is holding Scotland’s economy back. Scotland’s deficit is six times that of the UK. The rate of unemployment in Scotland is higher than anywhere else in the UK.

Even before coronavirus, the SNP had cost Scotland more than a quarter of a million jobs, and then we have its failures in other policy areas, too. Under the SNP, Scottish schools have slipped to their lowest international scores in science and maths. There are 3,600 fewer teachers since the SNP came to power. On the NHS, Nicola Sturgeon’s waiting time guarantee has never been met. Crime is on the rise, with most areas of Scotland now having fewer police officers on the frontline. The Scottish Government have missed their own legal emissions targets and the SNP has broken its promise to extend Scotland’s broadband fibre network. That is a catalogue of failure by the SNP, yet SNP Members come here today arguing for more uncertainty, more delay, more constitutional upheaval and yet another independence referendum.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

In thinking of certainties in this debate, I trust that the hon. Member shares with me a great gratitude to the armed forces. Regardless of whether they are Welsh, Scottish, English or Irish, they cross borders into Wales and Scotland to come and help to defeat the virus. I think we can all be proud of the armed forces of the United Kingdom.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that important point, which is a useful reminder of the important role that our armed forces have played in tackling this pandemic. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House of that.

I am not entirely sure why SNP Members claim to support independence for Scotland, because if they had their way, they would be rushing to give that independence straight back to the European Union by joining it again. They would be handing newly acquired powers back from Scotland to the European Commission; handing back control of our fishing waters to the European Commission; and dragging Scotland back into the hated common fisheries policy.

The SNP lacks ambition for our great nation of Scotland. I am sad to see the division and uncertainty in Scotland that the SNP is stoking up in an attempt to score political points. The SNP will use any means to push for its independence obsession. It will not come as any surprise to the House that I will not support the SNP’s motion. The SNP is desperately trying to undermine the UK and the UK internal market, putting Scottish jobs and the livelihoods of my constituents and other Scots at risk.

It is the UK Government who are putting the protection of Scottish businesses and jobs at the heart of their approach, both in their EU negotiations and in tackling this pandemic. I support them in everything they are doing to achieve that.

Future Relationship with the EU

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Of course, not only the Cabinet Office but many other Government Departments have negotiations with a wide range of stakeholders, including the unions. The British people value the things that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about. They value their rights. They value high standards. They value high environmental standards, and all the other things that many Members care about, because they know their constituents care about them. On these things, including particularly on employment law, the UK has led the pack, so I would say to him: have a little faith. It is his job not to trust the Government, but he should trust the people.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Minister will understand that many of Scotland’s fishermen voted to leave the European Union to retake control of our fishing waters, so can she assure me that the UK will not compromise on our fishing rights and that the EU will need to accept that the UK will become an independent coastal nation by the end of 2020?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We want a separate fisheries framework that reflects our rights in international law. Our requests are simple, reasonable and straightforward. We want the EU to recognise those rights, recognise us as a sovereign equal, and come to the negotiating table with renewed vigour to ensure that we can get that agreement and a deal.

The Economy

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to look at the specific situation the hon. Gentleman raises, although I would caution that it is difficult to make changes to these schemes. As many Members have said, the important thing is now getting cash out to people, and the only way to do that is to let these systems run as designed, but I am happy to look at the issue he raised.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Chancellor and his team at the Treasury on everything they are doing to support the country through this very challenging time. On Scotland and the Barnett consequentials, how much extra funding has flowed to Scotland as a consequence of his announcement, particularly the business support? How much extra money has come to Scotland as a consequence of that?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right. When I say that we are all in this together, I mean every part of our Union. The Government are steadfast in their support and are determined to get through this crisis by supporting and working very closely with all members of our Union. I can tell him that from the Budget onwards £4 billion in Barnett consequentials have been provided to Scotland, £3.5 billion of which relates specifically to the range of announcements in response to the coronavirus. Those numbers are in addition to the UK-wide measures that support business, such as the jobs retention scheme.

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That was a very long intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am afraid that I do not really agree with the tenor of it, which excuses some of the appalling behaviour that is taking place in local government. A recent article in The Times revealed that Steven Mason, a former Northumberland County Council chief executive, was given a £370,000 pay-off, but took up a job four months later at South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust on £180,000 a year, despite Ministers having pledged to take back exit payments if the recipient returned to the public sector.

One reason why I got interested in this subject was that I was concerned that proposed local government reorganisation in Dorset would be an excuse for a whole lot of public officials employed by local councils to look after each other’s interests at the expense of the local taxpayer and give themselves big handouts. I am afraid that my worst fears proved to be well founded, and some unconscionably high payments were made as a result.

I take the view, unlike my hon. Friend, that this issue is urgent and overdue for action. Indeed, I think an alternative a title to my Bill might be the Overcoming Sir Humphrey’s Resistance Bill, because the resistance of the civil service to what is proposed in this Bill is a textbook example of how the civil service can conspire to frustrate the will of Parliament and, indeed, of the elected Government. How is it, all this time later, that we do not even have the regulations? We have not even had a response to the latest consultation, which was originally promised to be delivered in 2018. I went to see the then Chief Secretary back in 2017 and said to her, “Has it occurred to you that this measure is supported by almost everybody in politics and in public life? Has it occurred to you that the resistance to it is coming from the civil service, because they are going to be losing out as a result of the implementation of the Bill?”

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is highlighting an important point. Is he aware that the same issue arises in Scotland, where we have police chiefs, university bosses and other public sector servants getting paid huge six-figure sums as they leave their taxpayer-funded jobs?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am sure that the issue does happen in Scotland, and I hope the measures will apply across the whole country, although the latest consultation document that the Government issued indicated that there might be different treatment in different parts of the United Kingdom.

The matter has reached the stage of being a public scandal, because money is tight and the Bill is a means of recovering £200 million a year for the taxpayer, both locally and nationally. It is unfortunate that, as a result of answering questions from me, successive Ministers have had words put into their mouths or put on the record that have now proven to be completely untrue, I am afraid. What more can one say? The current Chief Secretary has assured me that he will not fall in the same trap as his predecessors.

The regulations could be issued pronto. Why have they not been? We were told that there needed to be a consultation. After a lot of pressure, the consultation was issued in April 2019, and the responses had to be in very quickly by July 2019. Have the Government yet issued their response to those responses? No, they have not, because it is all so complex.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely, I agree with that. Of course, the Government said that pending the implementation of the regulations, they would ask the public sector to comply with the spirit of them and the primary legislation that had been passed, but I am afraid that is almost impossible for local councillors and, indeed, the Government to do in practice, because we need to have the law in place. That is why I hope we will hear from the Chief Secretary that we will get the law on the statute book later this year so that public sector exit payments are limited to £95,000.

Clause 2 of my Bill suggests that we should give notice to all people who might be thinking of getting ahead of the game that they would be subject to the provisions of the Bill in respect of any public sector exit payments agreed after 1 April 2020. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary thinks that to be a sensible safeguard, but I hope it will find favour.

It is ridiculous that we should have to legislate to force the Government to introduce regulations. Many new colleagues are here today. I should tell them that on Fridays the Government often promise the earth and never deliver. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) introduced a Bill to deal with rogue parking operators last year. It got on to the statute book and everyone thought that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 meant that we would get rid of rogue parking operators. It may be months or years before anything effective is done in regulations.

[John Lamont]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have been rather distracted in the past few years getting Brexit done?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am not sure that that is an adequate excuse. It could be a justification for everything, but in the Treasury it is an issue of priorities. There is no reason why, if hon. Members are given a promise that something is going to be done on a particular date, that promise should not be honoured.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I will speak exceptionally briefly because I am keen to hear from the Minister.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for introducing this important debate on his private Member’s Bill, which I know exercises the minds of many of my constituents and other people across the country. For most, the idea of having a redundancy payment of six figures is far beyond their reach. Since the great recession, astonishingly, in a number of high-profile cases, severance payments have been seen to be rewarding failure. I am sure that Members are aware of examples. In Scotland, as I said, a string of police chiefs, university bosses and others have seen six-figure payouts in recent years.

So I am pleased that the Government are taking action on this. I again congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting the issue. I await to hear what the Government are doing to tackle this important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s support. It was this Government who introduced a national living wage in 2016. It was this Government who increased the rate, as recently as April this year. The announcement that we have made, which I will have more to say about later, will help to end—actually will end—low pay for good in our great country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The best way to improve living standards is to reduce tax burdens. Does the Chancellor share my concern that anyone in Scotland earning more than £27,000 is paying more than the equivalent English taxpayer, and that more than 1 million Scots are paying £500 million in extra taxation?

[Sajid Javid]

I believe the First Minister actually promised not to raise taxes, but in fact the SNP has raised taxes on more than 1 million Scots. Doctors, teachers and police are all paying more in Scotland than in any other part of the UK. Scotland is now the highest-taxed part of the UK, and the Scottish people will remember that at the next Scottish elections.

Local Bank Closures

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross]

I endorse and agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. I want to focus specifically on how banks approach this whole process. It could be done far better—indeed, it could not be any worse.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for why it is wrong that these banks have been closed. In my own area in the Scottish Borders, we have lost many bank branches, which causes great anxiety to many of the residents. When banks shut a branch, they say that there are mobile or other banking options, but many communities do not have access to mobile phone signals or broadband. Does my hon. Friend agree that the banks should be doing more, before they shut the branch, to ensure that all residents and communities are properly connected? The Government may have a role in supporting that, too.

[Douglas Ross]

My hon. Friend’s seat in the Scottish Borders, my own in Moray and many others across Scotland do not have adequate broadband provision to allow a suitable online connection, to which the banks are directing so many people. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the point made by my hon. Friend.

It is right that we should discuss bank closures in the round, but this debate specifically addresses the point at which the final bank branch in a town closes. Sadly, we have recently seen that in Lossiemouth. Lossiemouth is not a small town; it is a growing town. The population is increasing, largely due to the UK Government’s investment there. We are putting £400 million extra in RAF Lossiemouth, which will be the home of the P-8 Poseidon aircraft. With that, there will be at least an additional 400 personnel and their families coming to the town.

It is all the more bizarre and upsetting that now, when Lossiemouth has this huge investment and is preparing for an increase in population, the last branch in the town should have decided to go—it closed last week. This weekend was the first without the branch and, as I will mention later, the ATM was also removed. In the first weekend after the branch closed and the ATM was removed, a town with almost 8,000 residents was left with no cash whatever. The two remaining cash machines in Lossiemouth ran out of money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Research into the issue shows that some of the lowest paid in our society will be most affected if there is an even greater reduction in access to cash.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of cash. There is a wider economic point, because many of the small towns that he represents, and many of those that I represent in the borders, are absolutely dependent on cash. In Coldstream, Hawick and other towns in my constituency, when the banks have shut and the cash machines have gone, many traders have noticed a significant decrease in footfall and sales. That undermines the economic viability of the high street.

[Douglas Ross]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. As he mentioned Coldstream and Hawick, I am sure he will get two press releases out of that intervention—something he always does well in debates such as this. Our high streets are vital to our communities, but we have seen a reduction in the number of shops on them. If that continues, we will really suffer.

I will briefly mention banking hubs. They are an idea that we have to consider, and I want to hear what the Minister has to say about them. The idea is not a new one; I know that it was suggested as far back as 2002. Last year, I wrote to every bank operating in Scotland about the suggestion of looking further at banking hubs—I know it has been made by several politicians from different parties—and I have to say that the response was disappointing. Some of the banks ignored the suggestion, and others said that hubs were not right for them. Nationwide said that it did not believe it was in the interests of its members to enter into a branch-sharing scheme. Such a scheme might not be in the interests of Nationwide’s members, but it might be in the interests of our constituents and its customers.

We have to do far more to get the banks to work together. They may have some concerns, but if we cannot have the four branches that we used to have in Lossiemouth, let us at least have one hub where the banks can work together to ensure there is still a banking presence.

Spring Statement

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have already made the point about the unsustainable rise in welfare payments under the previous Labour Government. A 65% real-terms increase in the welfare budget was not sustainable. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) can chunter from the Opposition Front Bench as much as she likes, but it will not make it sustainable. I will tell the hon. Lady what will help her constituents: the £6,500 tax cuts per family for people earning low wages and buying fuel, which Opposition Front Benchers voted against, and the £2,500 increase in the national living wage since 2016 for people working full time on low wages.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I was delighted to hear that the Chancellor is ploughing £260 million into the borderlands growth deal, which shows this Government’s commitment to cross-border infrastructure investment. It will allow the borders railway extension—from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle—to move forward. I was also pleased to hear his response to the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) to visit his constituency, so when he visits will he also come across the border and visit my constituency in the Scottish borders, which will see significant benefits from this investment?

[Mr Hammond]

The whole point of the borderlands growth deal is to celebrate the economic geography of the borders region on both sides of that non-line between Scotland and England, so my hon. Friend makes a very good point. If I am coming to Carlisle, I shall certainly cross the border and visit his constituency.

Sport in the UK

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

The hon. Lady makes a great point. We need to work with Sport England to reach everyone who can take part in sport in whatever way possible. I was lucky enough recently to speak at an event marking the 30th anniversary of the Paralympics, and it made me think of my young children, who do not see any barriers to participation because of London 2012, which changed so much. It is absolutely right that where there is an opportunity for people to take part in sport we give them that opportunity. That is the focus of my speech this evening.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Minister is making a strong case for participation in sport, but there is also a clear case in terms of preventive health, given that evidence suggests that being involved in sport reduces by 30% people’s incidence of stroke, cancer and other illnesses. Today being World Cancer Day, does she agree that there is a long-term public purse benefit to getting people fit and healthy through participation in sport?

[Mims Davies]

Absolutely. I will build on that thought in my speech. It is vital that we work with health bodies and communities and through social prescribing. It can help to keep our communities fitter, healthier and more connected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. She made a powerful speech, but I have to say that it was quite negative. She talked about all the things she does not like—including betting, big football clubs and sitting down at the football—but we should be talking about the positive things that sport can achieve and what it brings to all our communities. Let us not be dour; let us be positive about the power of sport.

The Minister gave a brilliant speech. We were lucky to have the Tour de France visit Yorkshire not so long ago, and she gave us a tour de force today about all the benefits of sport.

As well as being the home of brewing, my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter is also the home of the English football team. We are delighted to have in Burton—I share it with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—St George’s Park, the home not just of the English football team but of all 28 England national football teams, including the disability teams, the women’s team and the blind team. It is a truly inspirational facility. I took some credit from the Bring it to Burton campaign, which I ran when I was a candidate. That was obviously instrumental in the £105 million being spent in my constituency to develop that state-of-the-art facility. The 13 pitches have attracted teams such as Barcelona and Monaco, and the Irish rugby union team have trained there. We are a magnet for sporting excellence and it is a great pleasure to have the facility in my constituency.

We also have Uttoxeter racecourse for the sport of kings. I am delighted that we play host every year to the west midlands grand national, which attracts some 16,000 people to my constituency on the day and puts £1 million into local businesses over that weekend. We talk about the power and benefit of sport, but its financial benefit to my constituents and those businesses is really important.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about horse-racing, which in terms of attendance and revenue created is the second biggest sport in the United Kingdom; it is a great shame that it has not been mentioned so far in the debate. My constituency has Kelso racecourse, which contributes greatly to the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that horse-racing is very much an underrated sport and that it does so much to promote sport and physical activity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

There is a danger that we might get a bit ahead of ourselves but, yes, I agree that, in the time to come, there should be a statue to Andy Murray in Dunblane, perhaps to sit alongside his gold post box. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will commission the statue himself.

That brings me on to the Murray legacy. The staggering success of the entire Murray family is and will continue to be a positive thing for Scottish tennis, as well as tennis across the UK, yet their rise to become the best tennis players in the world has exposed funding and governance imbalance issues that need to be taken seriously, lest we risk squandering the opportunities that their success could provide us with: opportunities not only to nurture future champions, but, just as importantly, to give more people the opportunity to play tennis. To achieve that, we need to be frank about where we are going wrong.

At the age of 15, Andy was advised by one Rafael Nadal that he would have to move away from the UK if he wanted to become a professional. That was 16 years ago, and not much has changed. Scotland is one of the world’s leading nations for tennis, thanks to the success of not only the Murrays, but Gordon Reid, the former world No. 1 in men’s wheelchair tennis, and others. However, it is an indisputable fact that Tennis Scotland has been drastically underfunded by the Lawn Tennis Association. Despite Scotland’s enviable success, the LTA gave Tennis Scotland just £650,000 in 2017, from a budget of £60 million UK-wide. That means that Scotland, with some 8.5% of the UK’s population—and the UK’s best players, Davis cup coach and so on—received just 1% of the revenue funding available from the LTA. In 2018, that allocation was slashed to just £582,000.

[John Lamont]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the funding for sports development. Does he therefore agree that it is unfortunate that shortly before receiving the extra revenue from the sugar tax from the UK Government the Scottish Government slashed funding for sportscotland by a fifth?

[Gavin Newlands]

Far be it for me to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but last year the Scottish sports budget grew by £2 million—more than 7%—and Derek Mackay offered to underwrite any loss from the lottery sports funding of up to £3.5 million. So I will not hear any Scottish Conservative nonsense about the Scottish Government on this issue. This debate at least should be a consensual one.

The perfect example of this problem can be seen in the availability of the indoor courts that make the game possible, particularly in Scotland, given our weather conditions. At the last count, there were 102 facilities in Scotland, compared with 1,484 in England. Of course, this is not just the fault of the LTA; government at all levels, as well as non-governmental bodies, have also to address issues of access. But what a shame it is that, particularly in Scotland, the biggest issue that young people who wish to get into the game may face is finding somewhere to play. Speaking to the Scottish context, Murray said:

“I know in Scotland that there have not been many indoor courts built in the last 10 years. That seems madness. I don’t understand why that is. You need to get kids playing; you need to have the facilities that allow them to do that.”

The all-party group on Scottish sport has looked at these missed opportunities, taking evidence from the then chief executive of the LTA, Michael Downey, Judy Murray and Blane Dodds, the chief executive officer of Tennis Scotland. Following this investigation, the LTA loosened its purse strings somewhat and, along with sportscotland, delivered a capital investment fund specifically for tennis facilities in Scotland.

Andy Murray has criticised the LTA for not doing enough to build on his and his family’s success, recently saying:

“Maybe it’s something I should have given more thought to while I was playing but I never felt that was my job to do that.”

He is right. It is not his job—it certainly should not be—to be getting involved in the governance of his sport; our athletes, in whichever sport, should be able to put 100% of their concentration into their game. But the Murrays have felt the need to intervene as, staggeringly, tennis participation numbers continue to drop, despite the success of top-level tennis players across the UK. Two things must change: we need a sharp increase in the number of facilities available across Scotland, and the UK as a whole; and we need parity and fair funding between the game’s governing bodies. That means that the LTA needs to provide Tennis Scotland with the funding it needs to do its job properly.

Over the past few years—I say this from speaking to other Scottish sporting bodies—it has become increasingly clear that the issues we see arising within tennis are very common in the governance of other sports. Many of these non-governmental bodies feel strongly that there is a lack of “equal status” and “equal standing” between the Scottish bodies—this applies to other devolved bodies, as this is not simply a Scottish issue—and their English counterparts, with many UK-wide NGBs functioning as extended versions of their respective English bodies.

One chief executive I spoke to said that their respective English body acted like they were the “GB” organisation, rather than one of four separate bodies. That too often leads to the organisations responsible for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland being cut out of processes, with no say in crucial decision making. That leads to the kind of situations we have seen in UK Athletics, where a shambolic leadership team are trying to ride roughshod over the devolved athletics bodies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seems to have a cough, but I will come back to him shortly.

A recurring concern of all Scottish NGBs is that there is a lack of systematic process, with the English bodies often unilaterally taking action over the others on UK-wide decisions. That is not to say there is not some excellent practice that we can learn from; the governance of swimming has been cited to me as an example of a better system working between the UK’s countries. I look forward to raising this issue with Dame Katherine Grainger, who, in addition to being one of the UK’s most decorated Olympians, is also the chair of UK Sport, as she will be attending a meeting of the all-party group on Scottish sport on Monday 25 February.

On devolved sports, another area that needs to improve is broadcasting, and the all-party group has been looking at this subject. The level of media coverage awarded to Scottish sport is regularly a contentious point among sports fans, with claims regularly being made that individual sports in Scotland do not receive the coverage they feel their sport is entitled to. For example, early last year, Scottish football fans took to Twitter to complain that ITV/STV aired the England v. Malta game but did not air Scotland’s crunch game against Lithuania. STV responded to those complaints stating that it did not have the rights to the match, as they were sold on a UK-wide basis. At the time, STV responded on Twitter by saying:

“Scotland, we hear you.

We’d love to bring you the match, but as football rights are sold UK wide it's sadly out of our reach!”

The current list of events was drawn up in 1998, more than two decades ago. I fully appreciate that, because of England’s size, the rights for England internationals are commercially viable for commercial public service broadcasters, and that is not the case for Scotland. If Scotland games were added to listed events, the Scottish game, which is not exactly flush with money, might be forced to accept a smaller rights fee package. I hope to address several other issues to do with broadcasting in an upcoming roundtable with partners and broadcasters in Scotland.

Finally, next Tuesday Glasgow Life will present on the impact and legacy of the Glasgow 2014 games. With Birmingham 2022 on the horizon, Members from the midlands may find that interesting. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Scottish Government will receive the full Barnett consequentials that should flow from the Birmingham 2022 spending commitments.

In conclusion, the great American football coach Vince Lombardi once said:

“It’s not whether you got knocked down; it’s whether you get up.”

And with that, I’ll get down.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson]

Again, my hon. Friend points to the lack of accountability and the hotchpotch—the rushed contracts put together by PFI, which benefited somebody, but did not benefit our local authorities or our children, and they do not benefit the patients in hospitals.

There is no better example of the need for new clauses 14 and 15 than North Ayrshire Council in my constituency. This Labour-run council had a PFI process that was severely flawed and was uncovered by local journalist Campbell Martin. Some have even insisted that criminal activity was involved, since while the council appeared to have two bids for construction projects—therefore seeming to provide the genuine competition required by EU procurement rules—in fact, the evidence suggested that one of those bids was from a subsidiary of the other company submitting a bid, so there was actually no competition at all. The Labour council was made aware of this before the contracts were awarded, but awarded them regardless. In the opinion of one ex-detective, the evidence showed

“criminality from start to finish.”

Another former officer stated that a common law crime of forgery and uttering should have been pursued. Right there we see the need for more transparency. I for one would like to see more transparency on the tax arrangements of such companies, as this is very much in the interests of the UK’s public finances.

All this information relates to a public-private contract now costing taxpayers over £1 million every month in North Ayrshire. Add to that the schools that are crumbling across cities such as Edinburgh, and we have real questions about these PFI firms. For projects of a capital value of £4 billion in Scotland, we will repay £22 billion, with our schools spending 8% of their budgets on paying off these Labour PFI debts. Can we really allow any lack of transparency around the tax affairs of such companies?

It is absolutely essential that there is more transparency around how UK public finances finance public sector projects. The tax affairs of these companies and their wider financial affairs need to be open to scrutiny because they build or have built our public assets. I urge the Committee to support new clauses 14 and 15.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I want to discuss the clauses in the Bill that seek to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. Combined, these measures will seek to raise billions of pounds for our public services by further clamping down on this serious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) identified clearly that these measures will raise much needed extra money for our public services.

Rather than raising taxes for businesses, this Government are focusing on making sure that tax liabilities are paid. They have a strong track record of clamping down on those seeking to avoid paying their fair share. This Budget builds on that track record, with no fewer than 21 measures to protect revenue and bring in more tax by tackling fraud, avoidance and unfair outcomes.

On a related point, I very much support the introduction of a new digital services tax, which is not technically a measure designed to tackle tax avoidance, but which will nevertheless make our tax system more fair and fit for purpose in the digital age. The Chancellor is right to try to find a global solution, but in the meantime this measure is a step in the right direction that will make the tax system fairer for small businesses in high streets in my constituency in the Scottish borders that are struggling to compete with the likes of online giants such as Amazon. Of course, in Scotland, these businesses are also struggling with the high tax regime imposed on them by the SNP Scottish Government in Holyrood.

Other clauses in the Bill, such as those to ensure that HMRC is a preferred creditor in business insolvencies, that more tax is paid to the public purse and that we crack down on insurance companies routing services through offshore territories, are certainly welcome.

[Jim McMahon]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, though, that the trade-off with the digital sales tax and the relief being offered to some premises in town centres just is not enough? Take, for instance, the former Textiles Direct unit in my local shopping centre, which has been empty for some time, but has a rateable value of £500 per square metre. Compare that to the Amazon warehouse near Manchester airport that pays just £44 per square metre. How can it be right that the gap is so large?

[John Lamont]

Clearly, I cannot speak about the circumstances in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but these measures are clearly a step in the right direction. I know the number of businesses in my constituency that contact me. They are competing with online businesses and other digital platforms to provide the same or similar types of services. It is just not fair when businesses are able to run very profitably, making a big turnover from a garage or attic, when at the same time the same service or shop on the high street is paying significantly higher business rates. Of course, in Scotland, we have the additional challenge of the additional taxes that businesses are having to pay through the Scottish Government’s high-tax agenda.