No-deal Brexit: Short Positions against the Pound

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That is such an unworthy question that I do not intend to dignify it with an answer.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

The Minister quotes Frances Coppola, but she also said:

“Many hedge-fund managers see Brexit…as an opportunity from which they obviously hope to profit, and they are positioning their portfolios accordingly”.

She fears that that creates “psychological pressure” on the Prime Minister

“to deliver what his backers want rather than what is in the best interests of the country”.

How can the Minister convince the people of the UK that the Prime Minister has the moral courage to resist that psychological pressure?

Pet Identification

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Strangely, I used to have a cat called Muffin as well, which was sadly knocked over at the age of one. It was in the days before microchips, but because it happened in our street, the cat was handed to me and we were able to bury her in the garden, plant a little tree on top and say goodbye to her. I know how important it is for people to be able to do that and to know what has happened to their beloved pet.

Muffin was followed by two ginger cats—I decided to get two cats after that, so if one was knocked over, I would have one left—which lived to be 19 and 21. When they shuffled off this mortal coil, after a long and happy life, I decided that life was getting slightly complicated and it was too difficult to fit cats into a politician’s lifestyle. I admire hon. Members who have pets. I would find it impossible because of living in two places at once. Deep down, however, I am a cat owner. I am very fond of cats and, given the choice, I would have one as a pet. At the moment, it is totally incompatible with this lifestyle.

The other reason I wanted to speak in the debate is that, of anywhere in the country, the petition gathered most support from my constituency. Heywood and Middleton topped the table with 634 signatures, so I feel duty bound to speak on behalf of those constituents who cared enough to sign it. The sad story of Gizmo also happened in my neighbouring constituency of Bury North.

I fully support the aim of the petition, which hon. Members have described as a tweak in the law—that is all. Simply, the petition’s aim is that deceased or injured cats be required by law to be scanned in the same way that dogs are, and that efforts be made to track down their owners. Despite cats being popular pets, the law does not require motorists to report running a cat over, nor is it compulsory for cats to be microchipped, although many owners do that voluntarily. According to Cats Protection, 68% of domestic cats are microchipped. Those cat owners have done that for a reason: their hope is that, if their cat goes missing, somebody will scan the chip and the cat will be returned to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) referred to the Road Traffic Act 1988, which states that collisions causing death or injury to dogs, horses, cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, donkeys and mules, but not cats, must be reported to the police. The Government’s guidelines state that there is no requirement to report a collision involving an animal smaller than a dog, although I wonder what size of dog the Government are referring to. That guideline seems deliberately vague. The point is that the law could easily be extended to include cats.

The natural consequence of this petition is to extend compulsory microchipping to cats, to change the law to require motorists to report all accidents in which an animal is injured, and to make it a duty for local authorities to scan deceased and injured cats for microchips. I am pleased to say that my local authority—Labour-run Rochdale Borough Council—already has a policy to check deceased cats for microchips, and it makes every effort to identify pet owners. If the cat has a chip, a member of the environmental management team will contact the owner to break the sad news and arrange for the pet to be either collected or incinerated by the council—whatever the owner decides to do. If the pet does not have a chip, it is stored for up to four weeks in case it fits a description from concerned owners. Unclaimed pets are incinerated after four weeks.

My local authority’s response seems sensible and humane, and all councils should adopt it. Handheld scanners are inexpensive and take only a few minutes to use. The point has been well made that councils are already in possession of scanners because of the laws relating to dogs. It would save so much heartache if all councils adopted that practice. It would allow the pet to be buried or cremated with dignity, and would give their owners the chance to say goodbye and get closure.

The charity Cats Protection supports the compulsory microchipping of cats, which is one of its 2022 agenda priorities. It says that “cats are not political”, although some cats, such as Larry the No. 10 cat, might dispute that. Larry frequently comments on the political issues of the day via his Twitter feed, which may have just a hint of human assistance. At the moment, Larry is extremely concerned about whether the next incumbent of No. 10 has a cat allergy. I wish that was all we had to worry about.

Cats Protection is seeking cross-party support for its 2022 agenda. Compulsory microchipping for owned cats would allow more pets to be reunited with their owners and would enable owners to be contacted if their cat is involved in a road traffic accident. It also stresses the importance of keeping microchip details up to date if the owner moves house, for example. Those proposals are supported by the Labour party’s animal welfare plan, which calls for mandatory microchipping for cats, and a requirement for motorists to report all accidents in which an animal had been injured or killed. The natural consequence of that would be that all councils put in place a policy on scanning cats as well as dogs—a simple step that would save so much heartache.

There are many good reasons to bring about this change in the law, and not one reason why we should not. It is clear that it has cross-party support, so let’s just do it.

Beer Taxation and Pubs

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this very important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), and I thank the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for securing it.

I am particularly interested in this subject for several reasons, including as a constituency MP with a medium- sized family-run brewery in my constituency, J. W. Lees —John Willie Lees—which provides employment for about 1,100 people, owns 140 pubs across the north-west and north Wales, and is a major contributor to our local economy. My interest is also as the daughter of a landlady. My mother ran the Owain Glyndwr pub in Corwen, north Wales, during the 1980s, and then she was allowed to return home to the Duke of York in Heyside, Oldham—they were both John Willie Lees pubs —where I spent many hours, most of them happy, helping out with bar work in the evenings and at weekends.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way because she has just reminded me of something. I have been to the Owain Glyndwr pub in Corwen, when I was working at Theatr Clywd over the way. As an actor who toured the country for the best part of 50 years—I probably visited everybody’s constituency, apart perhaps from that of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—I have visited many taverns in many towns and, much to my wife’s surprise, people know me by name. The tragedy is to revisit a place—as we know, at one period some 50 pubs a week were closing—and find that the heart of the community has been torn out because the pub has closed. In Kirby-le-Soken in my own constituency, two of the pubs closed, but they have now reopened. Should we not celebrate the fact that some publicans are being innovative and creating new business, and we should support them through taxation?

[Liz McInnes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a lot of publicans are having to be innovative in the way they run their pubs to keep them open. I do not know when he visited the Owain Glyndwr, but if it was in the 1980s, I may well have served him.

[Giles Watling]

In 1987.

[Liz McInnes]

Then it could well have been me who poured his pint.

As the hon. Gentleman has just said, pubs are at the heart of our communities. For me, there is no greater pleasure than going down to my local on a Sunday evening—I try to make it my night off from politics—fending off all the queries about Brexit and what on earth we are all doing in this place, as well as providing a sympathetic ear for the landlord’s often expressed concerns about business rates and the future of his pub.

The facts are simple: pubs are closing at a rate of two to three per day. Our high streets are already struggling from the effects of bank branch closures, post office closures and the rise of online shopping. This is just piling on the problems in the face, I am afraid, of this Government’s increasingly incoherent policy on the future of our high streets. Pubs are being taxed left, right and centre with duty, business rates and employment taxes, as well as full VAT at 20%, while people are shopping online, staying at home and not coming out to socialise with others. This is not good for society, and a healthy pub is the heartbeat of its community.

The Campaign for Real Ale is calling for a fundamental review of the tax system to stem the tide of pub closures. CAMRA welcomes the Government’s business rate relief introduced in the 2017 Budget, but has said recently—just this month—that more action is needed to ensure the survival of the remaining 50,000 pubs. I am pleased that the Treasury is reviewing small brewer’s relief, which hon. Members have already mentioned. I look forward to hearing the results of the consultation, which closed on 17 March.

While small brewer’s relief has been helpful in the start-up of many new micro-breweries, it has also meant a reduction of one third of brewers, such as John Willie Lees in my constituency, which are squeezed between the large international brewers, with huge economies of scale, and the smaller brewers that benefit from a beneficial duty rate. As has already been mentioned, business rates do not help, and many pubs are closing because of high costs.

[John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think it would be good if the micro-brewers agreed with the family brewers a proposal for a new structure of duty relief that would have weight with the Treasury? SIBA was in contact with family brewers last year, but the talks broke down. Does she agree that if the industry could agree a scheme, that would have considerable weight?

[Liz McInnes]

I think that is a very sensible suggestion, and I hope my hon. Friend has fed it into the consultation. As I have said, I am looking forward to hearing the results of the consultation. I do not want to set up the small brewers against the medium-sized brewers, but I think we need to find a solution to this issue.

We have heard already from CAMRA and the British Beer and Pub Association that for every £3 spent in the pub, £1 goes straight to the taxman. The beer duty freezes in 2017 and 2018 were a welcome measure, after the damaging 3.9% increase in March 2017, but British beer remains overtaxed. Britons pay nearly 40% of all the beer duty paid in EU nations, but we consume only 12% of the beer. The beer duty rate in Germany is 12 times lower than the UK rate. A modest cut in beer duty in the next Budget would create thousands of additional jobs and help to ensure the sustainable future of our surviving pubs. This has been supported by the over 115,000 people who have signed up to the recent Long Live the Local campaign.

Finally, I want to finish with a point that was also made by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. If the Government were to increase the threshold for lower strength beer to qualify for duty relief from 2.8% to 3.5%, this would stimulate further investment in lower alcohol products and increase the range of low and no-alcohol alternatives available to encourage the healthy social drinking that our pubs—our community hearts—so desperately need.

Bus Services: Greater Manchester

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would first like to place on the record an interest, as a family member works for Transport for Greater Manchester, although not in the buses division. I bring to the House an important matter for debate and one that is as old as public transport itself: our bus services. I will speak about the impact of bus service reductions in Greater Manchester, the opportunities that arise through bus franchising and the need to bring about a new settlement for bus users in our city region.

For context, Greater Manchester’s bus services go back nearly 200 years to the original horse-drawn buses, but SELNEC—South East Lancashire North East Cheshire—brought together council transport departments from Manchester and its surrounding districts. In 1974, it became the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. In 1986, the bus operation was transferred to GM Buses, with its iconic orange and brown livery, which serviced communities across the city region and beyond until its employee buy-out in 1993, when it split services between the north and south of Greater Manchester. That was an important moment for the routes, services, pricing and quality of services we see today.

As a child growing up off Queens Road in Cheetham Hill, in the shadow of the imposing Queens Road bus depot, I would look at it as I walked to school each day, or to the Irish centre across the road, and the orange and brown livery was as powerful to me as the Coca-Cola or Heinz brands are to the whole population. It is a little-known fact—I am not sure that I should be saying this—that as a child playing on my pedal bike, I was so preoccupied with the plastic bottle that I had positioned against a rear wheel of the bike to try to make a motor engine noise that, as I went out on to Queens Road, I did not notice the passing vehicle and was struck by a bus driver. I am forever grateful that he was driving his car to work, and not his bus, at the time. I broke my collarbone and learned an important lesson about road safety. The local museum of transport housed in the depot would provide a staple visit. I made sure that each of my sons made their mandatory visit, whether they liked it or not, to take a photograph in the seat of a bus and a tram.

But it is not the past that occupies my time or my postbag today, but the state of public transport in Greater Manchester. By 1996, GM Buses South had been sold to Stagecoach and GM Buses North had been sold to First Bus, both of which are still operating from the depots that they inherited, basically splitting Greater Manchester in half. Rather than creating active competition, that created two, in my view, private sector monopolies with differential pricing and ticketing, and entirely different approaches to routes. Today, 82% of bus mileage in Greater Manchester is commercially operated and accounts for 90% of passenger journeys. Stagecoach operates the majority of routes in the south and First Bus operates the vast majority in the north, with very little mutual competition.

This was explored by the Competition Commission in a two-year investigation that found that nationally there were high levels of market concentration and a number of barriers to entry for new competitors—not least, the cost of establishing a depot, buying buses and creating routes. Its report found that head-to-head competition was uncommon and that the costs to passengers through the lack of competition was between £115 million and £305 million a year nationally.

The experience of many bus users is that bus services are being run for the benefit of the operators rather than bus users. Let us remember that when we say bus users, we are talking about those who need accessible, affordable and reliable transport to get to work, school or college within a system that is, at the moment, complex, expensive and too often not fit for purpose.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In my constituency, we are extremely reliant on the bus services. We have only two railway stations that serve only a part of the constituency. Complaints about bus services are a constant in my constituency emails. I am very grateful to him for raising these really important issues, which mean a lot to my constituents.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I congratulate her on the work that she does in supporting constituents for whom this is a real issue. Middleton and Heywood have First Bus as the main operator as we do in Oldham, with the main depot being based in Oldham for north-east Manchester. It runs the lion’s share of the routes, so there is no competition that would mean that the standard was raised. I appreciate that point being made.

[Jim McMahon]

Over the past decade, we have seen 32 million fewer bus journeys a year as a result of poor services. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on the work that she does in fighting for access to rural services, where many people feel isolated. When the bus does not turn up on time when it is needed, particularly in the winter when it is dark, as at the moment, it can be very difficult for local people. She campaigns on that with real effect, and I congratulate her.

[Liz McInnes]

It is really important that we remember the role of bus services in addressing social isolation. A constituent came to see me about the cutting of a bus service, which meant she was unable to go out in the afternoons to shop and visit friends and family. She was an elderly lady. I wrote to the Minister for loneliness about it, who wrote back to me and said, “This is a matter for the Department for Transport.” Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more joined-up working between Departments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell you how reassuring it is in these crazy parliamentary times to have an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); it gives a lot comfort. That is a really important point. Disabled people find it difficult to leave the house, and they have to contend with not only buses but, when they get off the bus, the shops, department stores and supermarkets that are not accessible. What we can do as a public service is ensure that public transport is accessible, to connect them as much as possible with our towns, city centres and villages. I appreciate that intervention.

As I have said before, we cannot address the clean air crisis if we do not address the bus crisis. Over the past 10 years, we have lost 32 million bus journeys every year in Greater Manchester. That is a staggering number of journeys being diverted. I should say, out of balance, that that is partly because there has been significant investment in our tram system, so some people will choose to use the tram rather than the bus network, but that still does not account for the 32 million. We have seen a significant shift, and too many people rely on their private cars to get to work because bus services just are not good enough.

As a result of commercial decisions or because bus subsidies have been cut due to local councils having their budgets cut—of course, subsidised routes are funded by council tax through the transport levy, so if the council budget is cut, transport naturally gets cut, too—many communities have seen routes reduced or cancelled completely, cutting off entire communities. Many older and vulnerable people are now isolated. At the same time, we have seen the cost of travel increase. Ticket fares have increased by over 55% above the rate of inflation in the same period. How can it be right that we are losing 32 million bus journeys a year, but the cost has increased by 55% over the rate of inflation? People are paying from both sides—through increased subsidies to operators and through poor services, and they are then charged on top of that. I pay credit to the Better Buses for Greater Manchester campaign, which provided that data.

Given the north-south divide in Greater Manchester, it is more expensive generally to travel across the city. If someone needs to make a bus journey that requires more than one operator, they have to use what is called a system one ticket, which is a multi-operator bus ticket. That costs £5.80 a day or £19 for a weekly ticket, often for people who are on the minimum wage and struggling to get by. We should compare that to what we pay for bus travel in London. Someone who needs to use multi-modal transport—say, the bus and the tram—will pay £9 a day or £38 a week. If we compare that with the same ticket in London, where someone wants to use a bus and the tube, they will pay £21.20. It is £38 in Greater Manchester, but £21.20 in London, so weekly tickets are more expensive—179% more expensive—in Greater Manchester than in London. Quite literally, passengers in Greater Manchester are being taken for a ride.

[Liz McInnes]

Oh dear.

[Jim McMahon]

Well, I had to say it. Give me some credit, please.

In 2014, the devolution agreement was reached with Greater Manchester leaders. At the time, I was the leader of Oldham Council, and we agreed to bring forward plans to franchise bus services in Greater Manchester. This would allow greater power over routes, frequency, operating hours, fares and standards. There has been a great deal of concern that the big operators, such as Stagecoach and First Bus, would seek any legal challenge to prevent bus franchising from happening, and there is little doubt that that has in part accounted for some of the delay we have seen.

Funding has already been spent by the Greater Manchester combined authority and the Mayor: £6 million to date, with a further £3.5 million to come and followed by another £2.25 million for bus reform towards 2020, totalling £11.25 million. Incidentally, that is dwarfed by the profit Stagecoach made last year alone, when it had a £17.7 million profit margin for the year. That may account for some of the nervousness we have seen: when making that much in profit, it provides a decent fighting fund if it has to take legal action to protect that profit. However, it is a bad deal for taxpayers and bus users.

Greater Manchester must now recognise that with every week, month and year that passes, it is the millions of people in our city region who will be paying the price of delay. That brings me to explore the willingness to do it Greater Manchester’s way. There is a reason why Greater Manchester secured the largest devolution settlement outside London and why Greater Manchester has attracted attention. It took things seriously; it made the evidence-based case; and it built partnerships and long-standing relationships to get things done. It is just not good enough that passengers and decision makers in Greater Manchester seem to be held to ransom by bus operators, which have taken hundreds of millions of pounds from routes, while routes have been lost and, year on year, the taxpayer subsidy is passed on. Unless a more balanced settlement is reached, that just is not a good deal, but it requires energy and determination to form a different vision.

While we wait for franchising to seek powers, we must use this time to secure any possible passenger advantage. It will come as no surprise that First Manchester was heading for difficulties because, after it secured an operating margin of 17.3% or £18 million in 2010, it lost ground with losses in 2016 and 2017 amounting to £11 million. When it became common knowledge that First Manchester was seeking buyers for its four depots in Greater Manchester, including in Oldham, together with its fleet of 500 buses and 2,000 employees, it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring some order and sustainability to bus services covering some of the poorest communities in Greater Manchester. I took the opportunity to raise this in my letter to the Mayor of Greater Manchester on 6 February, and I still urge that action be taken.

A difference seems to arise from the Bus Services Act 2017 in relation to whether the restriction in the Act on setting up a new company means there is also a restriction on buying an existing operation. I am conscious of the time, so I will jump ahead in my speech. I sought the advice of the Library, and I was referred to a companies law specialist. They said that

“it is clear that acquiring an existing company does not constitute the formation of a new company and so, as I would understand it sits outside the restriction in the Bus Services Act”.

They also said:

“It is my considered opinion that buying an existing company does not constitute forming a company.”

Even if conflicting legal advice was received focusing on the letter of the law as outlined in the Companies Act 2016, rather than the implied spirit of the Bus Services Act, there would be other options. We must make sure that we do not miss opportunities. For instance, there is the opportunity to have other municipal bus operators expand into Greater Manchester, such as those in Warrington, Reading, and Nottingham, which are performing well. If that is not considered to be an option, we could look at the formation of mutuals or co-operatives to make sure that passengers are part of the shareholding, or we could look at Manchester airport buying the service as a going concern and holding it ahead of bus franchising. There are plenty of options around. Fortune favours the brave, and it is important that we see determination.

Unfortunately, we have learned that the Queens Road depot, together with its 163 buses, has been sold to Go-Ahead for £11.2 million, separating it from the three remaining depots, including Oldham. While I accept that the new operator will work with other operators through the OneBus partnership it is my belief that carving up the north of Greater Manchester with a range of new operators buying the depots individually will make franchising harder, not easier. It is hugely disappointing, to put it mildly, that we have not capitalised on an opportunity that rarely presents itself.

Greater Manchester has done a great deal to ensure that there is investment in public transport. For instance, it has spent £90 million on bus priority measures and £130 million on bus stations, with an additional £29 million to support clean buses. It is important that operators play the game. I had an unfortunate exchange with Stagecoach Manchester on Twitter, as it was criticising the Mayor and the Greater Manchester combined authority for introducing new powers to reduce air pollution, as though that was not a reasonable thing to do, and it was not taking into account the £29 million clean bus fund invested by Greater Manchester. There was more than just a stick—there was also a significant carrot.

Public transport is key to giving people across Greater Manchester access to jobs, including constituents such as mine in Chadderton, Oldham and Royton who seek employment at key employment sites such as Trafford Park and Manchester airport, but who are denied that option because buses simply do not run to meet shift patterns, or are unaffordable and complicated, which disadvantages people trying to hold down more than one job, or who have with caring responsibilities and for whom time is precious.

This matters—all public transport users across Greater Manchester care about it, as 76% of all journeys using public transport are by bus. We must grasp this opportunity. Two and a half million people in Greater Manchester deserve better, but it requires courage. Remember, faint heart never won fair maiden, and it certainly does not get the buses to run on time either.

Transport for Towns

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. Many passengers across Greater Manchester had a torrid time last year. With daily disruption on the rail network and congestion on the motorway network due to smart motorway construction, getting around has been hard. Transport issues form a constant, if not large, part of my constituency casework, and my office regularly receives complaints, particularly about late or cancelled bus services.

My colleague, Councillor Phil Burke, who is a member of the Transport for Greater Manchester committee, describes the buses serving my constituency as dire. He points out that it takes up to an hour to make the average 10-mile journey to Manchester from the area, which is unacceptable for anyone trying to get to work in the morning. He also points out that we are in a vicious circle, with people not using the buses because they are unreliable, which leads to prices being hiked up because of low patronage or to services being cut altogether. With rail services available to only part of my constituency, my constituents are more reliant than most on good bus services. Until the damage done by deregulation is put right, bus services in my constituency will continue to be the poor relation of public transport.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, is working to create an integrated bus system that will be more affordable, more reliable and more accessible for disabled people. For the last 30 years, however, bus companies in Greater Manchester have been run in the private, rather than the public, interest. That needs to change. We are still waiting for the Department for Transport to put all the necessary regulations in place to enable franchising to begin under the Bus Services Act 2017 and for the much-needed reform of our bus services to commence.

If we do not have good transport in our local communities, no one benefits. Transport has to be affordable and reliable. It is a vital link for young people to access education and gain skills and for people to get to places of work, and it boosts the local economy. For the elderly, transport plays a vital part in helping them to access local services, such as hospitals and GPs, as well as in tackling social isolation. I am conscious of the time, so I will call it a day there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

I was just trying to find out the statistics for Bristol. The Member, or the resident, was obviously disturbed about how or when they could catch a bus, but if that Member was still around, the right hon. Lady could point out to them that 50% more people are using buses in Bristol compared with in 2009-10, as I saw on a visit last weekend.

No matter what happens with technology or how people change the way they want to travel, buses will still play a key part. More than 4 billion journeys take place on our buses and those who use buses have the highest satisfaction compared with all other modes of transport. Buses will continue to play a huge role in our transport system. They connect our communities to the workplace and to vital public services such as healthcare and education. They are the quickest and most effective way to deal with people’s desire to get to work and school.

Most importantly, the Bus Services Act 2017 gave local authorities the option to manage those relationships even better, including new and improved options to allow transport authorities to enter into partnerships with their local bus operators. As was noted by many hon. Members, Mayors have additional franchising powers, too.

I was interested to note which hon. Members’ constituencies were in mayoral authorities. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned that her local authority was waiting for an update in the regulations, but those regulations are already in place under the 2017 Act. Her local authority just needs to contact the Department and it will have the opportunity to enter into a voluntary or statutory relationship.

[Liz McInnes]

indicated dissent.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Lady shakes her head. If she wishes to get in touch with the Department, we can lay out how the plans can work for her local authority so it can take the relationship forward.

I believe the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) sits under the mayoral authority of the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). Through the powers in the 2017 Act, the Mayor has the opportunity to franchise bus services. I had that conversation with him in person when he met me about HS2.

The hon. Lady was also keen to make sure that the right investment was made in the rail network in her region. About £48 billion of rail investment is projected between 2019 and 2024. There has also been a substantial amount of infrastructure funding—about £300 million—to help with HS2.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was keen to understand how the 2017 Act could help his local authority. Local authorities can have a voluntary or statutory partnership with their bus companies. They just need to get in touch with the Department. We would welcome any interaction, because we are always delighted to enable local authorities to take that forward.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important and very relevant debate.

In my constituency of Heywood and Middleton, we have sadly been through all this before. The Heywood branch of Santander was closed in 2017 in a similar exercise to the one that we are seeing now, although at that time customers of the Heywood branch at least had the option of using the Middleton branch, and they were told that during the consultation. Now, it seems that that option is also about to go, leaving my constituency with no Santander branches whatever.

I look at Heywood town centre now and I can see how bank branch closures contribute to the decline of our town centres. In Heywood, NatWest closed its doors in 2015, Santander in 2017 and Lloyds Bank just recently, in January this year. The town centre is in decline, with many shops and small businesses closing. I am not laying the blame for that solely at the doors of Santander—obviously there are many other contributory factors—but I do think that the big banks need to acknowledge their community responsibilities. When they close a branch, they cut footfall, reduce access for elderly and disabled customers, and cause problems for small businesses in the area. Each branch closure chips away at our once thriving town centres.

In my constituency, the Rochdale Development Agency is currently making plans for Heywood town centre, deciding whether it should be residential, retail, or a mix, and it is in the council’s capital programme for the next financial year. It is vital that we regenerate our town centre and I hope that we can achieve this. I do not want the same thing to happen in Middleton, but the closure in July this year of the Middleton branch of Santander has been announced.

The announcement was accompanied by helpful advice on nearby branches, all of them more than a three-mile bus ride away, plus the information that banking could be done at Middleton post office. The powers that be at Santander seem oblivious to the fact that Middleton post office, in its turn, is being franchised into WHSmith in the town, with an expected reduction in service, as well as problems with accessibility for elderly and disabled customers. One of my constituents, Karen Dicken, tells me that once the post office has moved, she will no longer have access to post office services, as she cannot get her mobility scooter into WHSmith. Yet Santander appears to think that offering banking services via a Crown post office that is soon to be relocated is adequate. Clearly there are failings here on the Government side, as highlighted by their refusal to perform an equality impact assessment on the franchising of the Crown post office, but I find it staggering that Santander is so blithely unaware of what else is going on in Middleton town centre that it honestly thinks that offering post office banking services in the town is a viable proposition.

Santander UK is a member of the British Bankers’ Association and is a signatory to the access to banking protocol, which was introduced in May 2015. The protocol states that it is

“an industry-wide initiative, which aims to ensure that where banks close branches they do so responsibly and with consideration of the impact on customers and local communities.”

Santander says,

“we do not take the decision to close any branch lightly”,

yet it seems to me that this decision has been taken lightly, judging by the lack of attention to local issues, such as the impending closure and relocation of the Crown post office in my constituency.

I urge Santander to think again. I also urge my constituents to respond to the consultation. When the Heywood branch closure was announced, only six letters were submitted from constituents, with one more letter submitted from me. However, I have had a complaint from a constituent, who said that she has responded to the consultation and has simply been sent a repeat of what was already stated in the initial letter. She thinks it is a fait accompli. She says that she will move her account to a bank that does have a branch in the town.

Notwithstanding that, I urge all my Middleton constituents who want their town centre to continue to thrive to get their comments in now. I have also launched a petition to save Middleton’s Crown post office from back-door privatisation, which has attracted over 1,000 signatures, and I will present it to Parliament in due course. I do not want to be here in another two years’ time talking about the decline in Middleton town centre, and I urge Santander to fulfil its responsibilities under the access to banking protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am very happy to look into that. On access to cash machines, as I mentioned in the Adjournment debate last Thursday, we set up the payment systems regulator, which is responsible for overseeing payment systems. The regulator is closely monitoring the situation with LINK and the commitments it has made to maintain the spread of ATMs across the UK. I recognise that the pressure on that network is growing. However, I need to reflect on the relationship with the Post Office rather than trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question now.

I am going to make some progress, because I need to leave time for the hon. Member for Glasgow East to respond. Given unparalleled consumer change, the banks have adapted to keep competitive, including by taking some of the decisions we have discussed. That has meant investing unprecedented amounts in digital development, financial capability and tailored support for vulnerable consumers so banking is more personalised, on-demand and flexible, which many people expect in the modern world.

Let me address the impact on the franchising of Crown post offices, which a number of Members raised. Prior to finalising its plans for franchising, the Post Office runs local consultations to engage the local community and help shape its plans. That is in line with its code of practice and has been agreed with Citizens Advice. Indeed, Citizens Advice reported that the Post Office’s consultation process is increasingly effective, with improvements agreed in most cases, demonstrating its willingness to listen to the community.

The Government acknowledge that the post office plays an important part in the lives of customers, and accessibility of post office services is a key Government priority. That is why we have set specific access criteria, requiring 99% of the UK population to be within 3 miles of their nearest post office. Despite the point made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that legislation does not impose a specific requirement for Post Office Ltd to undertake an equality impact assessment, the Post Office considers the impact of proposed changes to the network on its customers, and the Post Office and all its franchise partners, including WHSmith, are subject to all relevant accessibility legislation.

[Liz McInnes]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I am not going to take any more interventions, because I only have four more minutes.

[Liz McInnes]

I just want to raise the issue of disabled access, which would be covered by an impact assessment.

[John Glen]

I will take that matter away and respond to the hon. Lady by letter.

The Government recognise that there are people who are struggling to adapt to new ways of banking or just prefer to carry out their banking in a more traditional way, over the counter. Members made powerful representations on behalf of constituents who find the closure of their local branch an inconvenience at best and a severe obstacle to their daily business at worst, so I want to take the time to reassure them that there is support available to minimise the impact and disruption of those changes.

I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and others about the access to banking standard, which I mentioned in a previous debate. The access to banking standard is an important tool for ensuring that customers feel informed and supported when a branch closes, and all major high street banks are subject to it. It is my view that Santander adhered to the letter and the spirit of the standard when providing support to customers. I cannot account for every individual branch, but I am sure Members will be able to take that up with Santander, who were here to hear their representations.

I recognise that it is important that the standard is adhered to in both letter and spirit, and that support is given, but the Post Office’s commercial agreement with 28 high street banks and building societies enables 99% of personal banking customers and 95% of small business banking customers to carry out their everyday banking at one of the Post Office’s 11,500 branches, which provide an excellent alternative to a bank branch. Everyday essential banking services, such as cash withdrawals and deposits, cheque deposits and balance checking, are all available in every Post Office branch, including those located in retail facilities. Since 2010, the Government have invested close to £2 billion in the Post Office, and we have provided an additional £370 million from April last year until March 2021 to ensure the network can continue to modernise and maintain suitable coverage across the UK. That has meant post office numbers have been at their most stable in decades.

This issue is not just about individual customers; it is about businesses, too. Santander has long had an arrangement with the Post Office for its business customers, who currently cannot deposit cash at a Santander branch and must use the post office instead. Indeed, a third of SMEs visit post offices every week, highlighting the Post Office’s value for business banking. The Government believe that too few customers know about those excellent services, so, at my predecessor’s request, UK Finance and the Post Office worked together to launch an action plan to raise awareness of Post Office banking services. I encourage every Member to support their local post office and make their constituents aware of those banking services.

I also hear Members’ concern about the depletion of the high street. That is why, in the last Budget, the Government introduced a £675 million future high streets fund—not another review but a fund—that seeks to make high streets and town centres fit for the future. Alongside that, we are helping smaller retailers by cutting their business rates by a third for two years from April 2019.

I am conscious of the time, so I thank all Members for taking the time to speak in the debate on behalf of their constituents and local communities. I fully respect the fact that bank branch closures are a symptom of wider changes in our economy. It is important that, in response to those changes, we strike the right balance between promoting a dynamic and competitive financial services sector and ensuring that customers are treated fairly. I take my responsibility for supporting the development of alternatives to banks across the United Kingdom very seriously.

Closure of Santander Banks

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who drives home the point of this debate. In my constituency of Lanark, the rural issues go to the heart of why these closures are so impactful and, ultimately, why we are calling on the Government to do something about it.

This Government have stood on the back of the financial industry for years, yet they have done little to regulate it, to the point where banks are now closing right, left and centre and nothing is being done to improve local economies. None of the measures being taken has considered the impact on rural economies.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. It has been announced that the Santander branch in Middleton in my constituency will close in July and that customers can use the Middleton post office, but the Middleton post office is earmarked for closure as well. I am grateful to her for bringing up the effect this is having on our town centres, which are dying.

[Angela Crawley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and this is why we are drawing this issue to the Minister’s attention. I am sure he is cognisant of these issues, and I am keen to hear what he intends to do about them.

As I explained earlier, I am using Santander’s own figures, which show that 10% of customers exclusively use face-to-face services in the branch. They also suggest that Santander has used this internal review to make a series of decisions at board level that will have a huge impact on local economies across the country and on the livelihoods of the staff working in the branches marked for closure.

It is regrettable that Santander chose not to undertake a full consultation with staff and the local community. Instead, it will follow a process of writing to customers to tell them when their bank will close, without adequately consulting the customers and staff who will be hardest impacted by the changes. Clearly, this decision has been taken behind closed doors, in the hope that no one would try to challenge it. I have spoken about only one story of a bank closure in my constituency, but this picture has been replicated all across the UK, as we have heard from other hon. Members.

Santander has announced its plans to close 140 branches across the UK, of which 15 are in Scotland. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is in the neighbouring constituency, so he is only down the road, asking him to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs to discuss how he and his Treasury colleagues could come together to mitigate the effects these closures will have in Scotland. Unfortunately, he has written to me today declining our invitation and laying the responsibility squarely with the Treasury, so it is all on the Minister here today—he can blame his pal. I hope he will have no more platitudes for me today and will give my constituents real answers on how the Government intend to hold big business to account for its rupturing impact on local economies and towns.

I warn the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was once upon a time the only Tory in Scotland—he now has some friends: ignore these cross-party calls at your peril. The cross-party calls from the Scottish National party, Lib Dems and Labour are clearly asking him, although he is not here to answer—and the Treasury, the Department he believes should be answering—what will you do to help my constituents? Scotland will not forget those who have let it down, and Members on the Government Benches have failed repeatedly to live up to their responsibilities. These closures will put 1,270 jobs at risk and will likely cause 840 redundancies, as Santander expects to redeploy only a third of the staff.

This is just the latest crisis for bank branches in the UK. The consumer magazine Which? reported at the end of last year that 60 bank branches were closing each month in the UK. Santander alone has closed 230 branches since 2015. People are being left behind without proper access to services. Post offices and mobile banking trucks do not offer the same range of services or the same convenience as branches. Some people, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, are unable to use online services. For people who live in rural areas such as Lanark and many other constituencies that will be affected by these closures, it can be a challenge to access banking services when branches close. The Santander closure in Lanark means that my constituents in Auchengray, Tarbrax and Woolfords will lose out on one of their relatively close services. This might mean that they have to travel into town and then for another hour on a train to get to the city to bank, or travel to their neighbouring town assuming that a connecting bus service is available.

Leaving aside the restrictions in digital connectivity faced by some of my constituents in rural areas, Santander has failed to take into account the wider ramifications that the closure will have. I must pay tribute to my constituency neighbour on the other side, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen), for his work in campaigning to keep ATMs open in rural areas, which mitigates some of the effects of bank branch closures. I recognise that Santander has made a business decision based on changing patterns of banking, but there must be a better way than to simply pull the plug on branch services, especially for rural communities.

The issue of transport, which I have raised, and the built environment should also play a key role in big businesses’ considerations when they are making such decisions. I believe these are real problems, and I must ask the Minister: what steps will he be taking to halt the effects of these closures on our communities? If he cannot halt them, how will he hold businesses to account in the future? This will only continue to happen in many places. Santander is but one example. RBS was another, and I am sure many more banks will do similar things unless the Government clamp down. These closures will have a deflating effect on local economies across the country, especially in small towns and rural areas, and I wonder what effects the Minister thinks that will have on the UK economy as a whole, especially at this moment in time.

I accept that Santander has made a commercial decision, but I know also that its decision will have a huge knock-on effect on other businesses in the communities it serves, and I cannot just stand back and allow it to go ahead. I know the closures will negatively affect many people, including the elderly and the vulnerable in our communities. I know that our town centres will struggle to recover from the damage caused by losing yet another branch. Rural communities will be less connected than they currently are, and businesses will suffer from the loss of their local branch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who could not be here today, has secured a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, so I assure the Minister that we will not be going away and this issue cannot be ignored. As I have said, I accept that this is a commercial decision by Santander, but I urge the Minister to take any action he can possibly take to halt the effects or hold the banks to account for this closure and the many others that will affect towns and rural communities. I hope he will pay heed to the comments of all Members who have spoken.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I promise the hon. Lady that I will come on to talk about that. It is about the relationship between the banks and the post office in the instance where it is the last bank that is closing. I am not here to defend the commercial decisions of banks, but I do think that the measures taken in this case look quite comprehensive with respect to dealing with vulnerable customers.

[Liz McInnes]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He paints a rosy picture of what Santander is doing to help vulnerable customers, but the fact is that it told my constituents in Middleton that they could bank at Middleton post office, which is earmarked for closure and will be moving into a branch of WHSmith, so in my constituency it most certainly is not in touch with what is going on in the town centre.

[John Glen]

I am not seeking to paint a rosy picture. I am setting out plainly the facts about what the bank has undertaken. I obviously cannot account for the way in which every single branch has handled things. I note the hon. Lady’s observations and I am very happy to look into what she says, or to make a link to Santander for her.

I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that this support demonstrates that there is a commitment to the spirit, not just the letter, of the standard, which is warmly welcomed. To ensure that all banks meet the requirements of the standard, the Lending Standards Board monitors and enforces it. Last year, it published its annual report on banks’ adherence to the standard and found that, overall, firms’ engagement was positive and genuine. However, there were some areas where banks could do even more, and the Lending Standards Board is using the full range of tools and sanctions at its disposal to work with banks where they fall short.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is working closely on this matter, as he did with respect to Carillion. We want a wider base of companies supplying the Government and the public sector, to ensure that we have a resilient public sector in the eventuality that such situations happen again.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

17. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of funding allocated to local authorities for children’s services.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have increased the overall spending on early years and children’s services to £12.7 billion.

[Liz McInnes]

My local council, Rochdale Borough, predicts an overspend of £4.5 million this year on children’s services, with a predicted total overspend in England of £840 million, so will the Chief Secretary now admit that £84 million—just one tenth of the total overspend—goes nowhere near addressing this local and national crisis?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The £84 million is specifically to roll out pilots and projects that we know have worked to reduce demand on children’s services and make sure children get a better outcome, but at the Budget we also put in an extra £410 million, which councils can spend on either adult social care or children’s social care.

Easter Adjournment

Liz McInnes Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I am grateful for this opportunity to raise what I and others—including my good friend, Rochdale Councillor Billy Sheerin—consider to be a much-overlooked issue. In the current Government, following the Prime Minister’s last reshuffle, we have Ministers for Women and Equalities, for disabled people and for loneliness, and social care has been added to the remit of the Secretary of State for Health, but we have no Minister for older people. Yet we have 15.3 million people aged over 60 in this country. By 2035, 29% of people will be over 60. Nearly one in five people currently in the UK will live to see their 100th birthday. Some 60% of older people agree that age discrimination exists in the daily lives of older people.

The older people’s champions network in the north-west, composed of local authority elected members, has been campaigning for the establishment of a post of older people’s Minister, and many hon. Members will have received an email from this group asking for their support. It is a cross-party group, led by a Conservative councillor from the Ribble Valley, Susan Bibby. This group wants the post of older people’s Minister to be established and to work across Departments in the same way that the Minister for Disabled People works to ensure that disabled people are not disadvantaged in any way.

With the increase in pension age, people are having to work longer to make enough money to live. The Government are in a position to encourage employers to embrace and utilise their older workforce, through the Work and Pensions Minister route and through advertising job vacancies and press releases from MPs encouraging employers in their constituencies to take on older workers. On health issues, dementia is the biggest killer in the UK today, and living well with dementia is the key to people being able to continue to contribute to society.

An older people’s Minister could work more closely with Public Health England to educate on prevention and living well with diseases generally associated with later life. I am pleased to be able to talk about the great steps made towards inclusivity of older people by the combined authority of Greater Manchester, led by Mayor Andy Burnham. On 16 March 2018, Greater Manchester became the UK’s first age-friendly city region as recognised by the World Health Organisation. Mayor Burnham, in addition to launching the age-friendly strategy, also announced £1 million of Sport England funding to encourage older people to be more physically and socially active.

Greater Manchester’s age-friendly strategy covers a multitude of areas, including housing, health and social care, transport, art and culture, physical activity, work and welfare and benefits, as well as a campaign to positively change the way that older people are viewed. It is clear that the north-west is leading the way in making sure that older people remain valued members of our society and are able to live healthily, happily and independently for as long as possible, from the positive approach shown by Mayor Andy Burnham to the campaigning work done by the older people’s champions in the north-west.

Caroline Adams, the Director of Age UK said that she would like to see a cross-cutting unit that could join up policy on older people across Departments. She said:

“What’s certain though is that we can’t go on as we are, with scarcely any central government resources directed at developing age-friendly policies and ensuring older people's views inform them.”

Some might argue that the Minister for loneliness might cover some of the role, but loneliness is, sadly, not exclusive to older people, and there are so many other issues that are crucial to our ageing society to enable them to have full and active lives. We live in an ageing society, and the impact and implications for us all will be immense. The creation of the role of an older people’s Minister is an idea whose time has come. I hope that by next Easter such a post might be in place.

To finish, I would like to wish everyone in the House a very happy Easter.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Liz McInnes Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said, this Finance Bill is testament to an out-of-touch Government with no idea of the reality of people’s lives and no plan to improve them. In the time that I have, I want to make particular reference to the lack of any apparent willingness on the Government’s part to invest in the west to east Crossrail for the north that we in the so-called northern powerhouse so desperately need and want.

In the Budget, the Chancellor made no mention of investment to improve the trans-Pennine rail route other than an announcement about improved wi-fi. As the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, said, at least we will be able to text and tweet our families and friends to let them know that we will be late. It is not just northern voices saying this: Derek Robbins, senior lecturer in transport and tourism at Bournemouth University, said:

“I would…describe the lack of progress towards a modernised and reliable transPennine rail route as more than disappointing, given that it is an essential investment for future economic growth in the north.”

Labour is planning to borrow to invest, unlike this Government who borrow to cover day-to-day spending. Investment that gives higher returns than the cost of financing the extra debt makes sense. The £10 billion cost of Crossrail for the north would unlock £85 billion of additional economic growth. However, I do not believe that this Government have the imagination or the will to make the northern powerhouse anything more than just a slogan. When I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conversations he had had with the northern powerhouse Minister about Crossrail for the north, his response was to talk about the electrification of the line from Manchester to Liverpool. That lack of response led me to believe that the answer to my question was probably none. Maybe the Secretary of State has the same problem I have encountered when trying to set up meetings with the aforementioned Minister for the northern powerhouse. I am still waiting for a response to a request for a meeting that was sent in October.

Yesterday, we witnessed an historic moment for Manchester’s rail network, with the opening of the Ordsall Chord—an £85 million scheme linking the main central Manchester stations of Victoria, Oxford Road and Piccadilly. However, our enthusiasm for this achievement was tempered somewhat by our concern over Government investment in rail in the north. For Manchester to really benefit from the Ordsall Chord, we need investment in Piccadilly and Oxford Road stations. For High Speed 2 to bring any benefit to the people of Greater Manchester, we need expansion of Piccadilly station, and that expansion must also take in and plan for HS3—Crossrail for the north. Yet the Government have indicated that Piccadilly might get only a digital upgrade, rather than the extra platforms that are needed. This decision has been met with despair from rail action groups, which have pointed out the very real need for physical capacity for more trains to go through the station, and that digital signalling is just not enough.

As I said immediately following the Budget statement, that statement was notable more for what it did not say than for what it did say. There was nothing for our police and fire services, nothing for social care, nothing for children’s services and no adequate equality impact assessment. For the last seven years, we have had nothing from this Government but missed opportunities and missed targets. The five-year austerity plan did not work; now it is the 15-year austerity plan. The Government keep missing their targets, but they keep returning to them—just with a longer timeline every single time.

This Government’s obsession with deficit reduction is at the expense of investment for our future, and it is people in the north who are losing out the most. In terms of transport spending, London has received over five times more public spending in the last five years than the north-west—hardly a country that works for everyone.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes),although I could not help but notice that her speech was almost entirely about spending, with almost nothing about raising money for that spending. The Finance Bill is about raising revenue.

[Liz McInnes]

If the £10 billion was spent on Crossrail for the north, it would bring revenues of £85 billion. I have talked about spending and raising money.

[Helen Whately]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but I still think that she very much spoke about spending and not about the content of this Finance Bill.

Our job in this House is to make difficult decisions not just on what we spend money on but on how we raise that money—who we tax and what we tax, when we are reluctant to tax people and would much rather they had the money in their pockets to spend themselves. Our aim is to make things better for our constituents, young or old and those in between. It is not our job to make promises that cannot be kept, to write cheques that we cannot cash, and just to say things that sound nice, like massive amounts of spending, but might turn out to have nasty consequences like high unemployment. Labour Members may tell us differently, but spending that we cannot afford is not the moral high ground—it is the moral low ground.

This Finance Bill builds on the tough decisions of the Governments led by Conservative Prime Ministers over the past seven years who have reduced the deficit by 75%, while as of next year debt will fall as a share of GDP. Let us not throw that all away, as Labour Members would, with uncosted proposals and unquantified borrowing. As we heard earlier, they could not answer our questions on how much their borrowing would cost.