Devolved Administrations: Borrowing Powers

Debate between Luke Graham and Kirstene Hair

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Luke Graham]

That is exactly my point. It is one of the main reasons I wanted to have this debate. Again, it is one thing to criticise on social media, but another to write letters to a paper when it is a one-sided argument. I applied for this debate because I wanted all parties to be here, and to have the opportunity to justify underspending by nearly half a billion pounds and then standing up in the Chamber and criticising the Prime Minister, the Government and often Opposition party leaders for their lack of policy and lack of caring for our constituents. That is inconsistent, it is indefensible economics, and it is unbecoming of MPs and a political party that sits in this Parliament.

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that it was quite telling that when there was word of the UK Government’s potential direct spending in Scotland, the Scottish National party was running scared? It is the only party I know that would run scared from somebody else wanting to deliver further funding in Scotland. It just shows that this is not about money. Everything the Scottish National party does is down to playing politics with policy and people’s lives; it is not about getting the best for Scotland.

[Luke Graham]

I could not agree more. The whole point of being an MP is that we put people before politics. I have certainly been critical of my Government on issues of spending—I know my hon. Friend has, too—and Members of the Opposition have certainly been critical about getting funding for Scotland, be it in block grant or city deals. We have made the arguments and posed the difficult questions time and again in this place. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister appreciates, we will continue to do so in a future Administration.

ATM Closures

Debate between Luke Graham and Kirstene Hair

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kirstene Hair]

I agree. That is why I want to talk about how important it is to do impact assessments before we lose the ATMs, so that those issues are closely considered.

The Association of Convenience Stores has criticised LINK’S FIP, saying that, “it is not clear whether LINK has the resources to implement these commitments across the network.” For example, LINK previously identified 2,651 deprived areas in the UK that are eligible for free-to-use ATM subsidy, but 10 years after the introduction of the FIP, 824 of those did not have free access to cash within a 1 km radius.

We need to watch what commitments LINK makes to ensure that ATM networks in rural areas are properly protected as rates are reduced further in the years ahead. The question is whether the LINK process of identifying vulnerable ATMs is working or whether we need to have further impact assessments. As the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) said, we need to ensure that this is not a “wait and see” game. We must work ahead of time to ensure that people are not negatively affected when they lose their ATMs. That is a huge issue across my Angus constituency, and for hon. Members across the Chamber.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend is drawing her speech to a close, but she is talking about impact statements, which are especially important. It is something I raised in my ten-minute rule Bill. Does she agree that we need to have different impact analysis for rural and urban areas? Some of the evidence she cited about constituents being disadvantaged is the same for Ochil and South Perthshire. I have a constituent in her 80s, who lives in St Fillans, who was told to “nip to Perth” to do her banking. That is a journey of 50-plus miles that would take more than two hours on the bus, especially in bad weather. Members who know the geography and weather in my part of the world will appreciate that that is no easy feat for a woman in her 80s who walks with two sticks.

[Kirstene Hair]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know his constituency very well, both the geography and the weather, so I know it is important, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the most vulnerable in our society have that provision and that it is easy to access. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Plumbers’ Pension Scheme

Debate between Luke Graham and Kirstene Hair

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirstene Hair]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My constituents also have grave concerns because they could essentially be left with nothing. That is why I shall urge the Government to take up various recommendations later in my speech.

Why then does the legislation have unintended consequences for plumbers? The first issue is that the plumbing industry is mostly composed of small, often family-run businesses that have been established for many years, created local jobs and contributed to their local economies. Such businesses are the lynchpin of our communities. I have huge admiration for this prime example of true, independent entrepreneurialism. They have built businesses that have thus far largely withstood the rise of large corporations and the so-called gig economy.

The legislation is quite simply not made for industries such as plumbing. The turnover of employers leaving the scheme is higher because, of course, many plumbers shut down their businesses when they retire. In many other industries with multi-employer pension schemes, companies tend not to be tied to one specific person and are less likely to close voluntarily, whereas in plumbing there is a steady stream of employers reaching retirement and closing down their businesses, and now suddenly finding themselves liable for huge sums of money.

The turnover of employers, combined with the age of the scheme, has the additional consequence of making the aforementioned orphan liabilities particularly onerous. Much of the scheme’s buy-out deficit comes from employers who left the scheme years ago, and that large liability is now being shared out among currently departing employers. Moreover, although many industries are mostly composed of limited companies, many plumbers own unincorporated businesses, leaving them personally liable for business liabilities such as the crushing section 75 employer debt.

Perhaps a plumber could change their unincorporated business into a limited company, but that in itself could incur an employer debt, leaving plumbers with little room to manoeuvre. They cannot sell the business or even transfer it from parent to child without incurring an employer debt, and nor can they move their employees to a new pension scheme. They are, in effect, trapped in the scheme, with no escape. Plumbers are therefore uniquely and personally exposed to the effects of having to pay a vast amount in employer debt when they retire. Many of the plumbers who have been faced with a massive bill when trying to close down their businesses had absolutely no idea that this could happen to them. It has been a sudden and deeply damaging surprise.

This issue is not 22 years old. The 2005 change from the minimum funding requirement basis to the buy-out basis, which requires a departing employer to pay enough into the scheme such that that employer’s pension liabilities could be bought out with an insurance company, drastically increased the amount for which plumbers could be liable. Until recently, the plumbers’ pension scheme was unable to calculate or estimate section 75 employer debts because the legislation was not easily applicable to the scheme, being as large as it is, and because it did not have all the necessary data. That has had a devastating effect on many plumbers.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that providing clarity is key for so many plumbers in her constituency, my constituency and others throughout the country, because the plumbers are suffering and the impact is on not only them and their employees, but their families?

[Kirstene Hair]

I completely agree. This issue affects not just the individual, but their company, their family and their livelihood. That is why it was so important to bring this issue to the Floor of the House.

Plumbers have worked hard all their lives and are now in danger of losing everything—their homes, life savings and plans for retirement—when they trigger their business’s employer debt, and all for being responsible, sensible employers who sought to provide for their employees’ retirements. It is a tragic irony made even worse by some of the frankly ludicrous sums involved. Some plumbers are finding themselves liable for hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds—amounts of money that they could not possibly manage to pay. I urge the trustees immediately to carry out an accurate valuation for these plumbers.